Do they really expect to be able to keep a lid on political speech within their country long-term? (From a practical perspective, won't this just drive .cn domainholders to switch to .com?)
Within the memory of China's current leadership, they've had a personality-cult-dictatorship and famines and purges-of-intellectuals (the 60s and 70s). Going back to the early-to-mid-20th century, China faced invading armies, a bitter civil war, and a communist revolution -- together killing tens of millions. In the 19th century, China was dominated by western foreign powers, and had another civil war -- the Taiping rebellion -- that featured a self-proclaimed "brother of Jesus" leading a "heavenly army" in a conflict that killed 25 million -- proportionately more than the US lost in its civil war of the same period (which had fewer cult/messianical undertones).
US domestic policy is still informed (and twisted) by our far-more-mild experiences over the same periods. So it's understandable that the technocratic Chinese leadership thinks that their own population, without strong central control, is prone to be caught up in giant ideological swings and civil wars.
While not excusing human rights violations, this insight should at least make their mindset a little less mysterious. America has had the luxury of seeing openness work for two centuries at the same time China was suffering religious, imperialist, and ideological misery.
This is very debatable. In history, China's top two dynasties. Han and Tang, both emphasis a Taoism Wu wei rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei
Yet both empires are the most powerful, liberate and culture rich dynasties of China. Han and Tang are technically every Chinese's dream country.
No, but they expect to be able to do it in the short term. I think at this point they are just hoping to delay a more open internet for five or seven years -- much beyond that begins to seem laughable.
I suspect the leaders of China understand better than we do just how tenuous their control is, and I think their fear of free political speech is legitimate. A protest in Tiananmen Square once almost brought down the government, and I don't think the CCP could withstand another protest of that magnitude, though of course less-lethal crowd dispersal technology has come a long way.
Maybe they think they don't need a long-term strategy. They only need to hold out short-term, until western governments take care of the problem for them.
With all the nonsense going on over kiddie pr0n, copyright infringement, etc., we are hearing a lot of scare stuff that would require even the "free world" to implement the kind of controlled infrastructure that China would love.
The majority of their policies I think would support this. If anything, the CCP is willing to give short-term concessions if it will guarantee long-term success.
This is not so-much the case now as China has more to bring to the bargaining table. But if you look at China's trade policies in the 80s and 90s they were very accommodating to western demands, even if it put China in a weaker position.
They know they can't control 100% over speech, nevermind information. They can have some control, say 60%. They are concerned with yielding that 60% effectively enough that the 40% doesn't matter. Maybe in the future they'll have 40%, they'll deal with that too.
The Google thing was very instructive. Control was far from 100% but newspapers and Chinese sites were highly controlled. Many foreign sources, for the more skeptically inclined, were blocked, but many weren't. They selectively let in more misquotes of Google employees making absurd sounding claims. As always, the truly motivated could get to whatever news sources they wanted.
The upshot is that they can control the story and public perception without preventing facts from penetrating.
I won't pretend to have a grasp of Chinese culture, but what this indicated to me is that there's a value gap between Chinese and western expectations and that our framing for these issues in China may be western naïveté. If what deeply offends our sensibilities does not offend the Chinese, it would also seem to indicate that our forecasts for the direction of progress may be way off.
This kind of thought scared me. It is a shame to admit that about 3 years ago, I held the same belief. But through my experience in doing startup and get in touch with several high level official's children in China, I think that it is totally wrong.
Maybe they are intelligent but their intelligence are definitely not used in the right way. How can you expect one who spent the whole life on plotting how to kill politic opponents to be a visionary? From my experience, the high level officials in China are corrupted. They buy luxury goods, pay for the most luxury sex service all that stuff.
There is an old Chinese saying which describes the current regime in China perfectly: 肉食者鄙，未能远谋。 It says, the one who eat meat everyday (the one in power) lost the ability to envision the future.
There were lots of very intelligent serial killers.
I also seem to remember a smart woman that worked for NASA that drove many miles to get back at an old boyfriend. She wore a diaper so she wouldn't have to make a bathroom stop.
The point I'm trying to make is that intelligent people many times make terrible decisions.
At the meta level, China has outpaced everyone in the past twenty years in regards to growth and development.
Among the senior CCP leaders, I imagine most if not all, acknowledge that an open, capitalistic democracy is inevitable. Their job is to grow the country to the point where the transition to said democracy is peaceful and smooth.
No China analyst worth his salt will argue that China is ready for this transition today....
And yes, a sudden transition to democracy would be disastrous for China. However, a safe and slow transition could begin today.
Btw this is mostly a disagreement of relative morals, where we in the West have this concept that a government should be "good" where that word doesn't have the same meaning in China.
Most people don't realize that every day the situation in China improves for the better. Even the stiffling hukou system that you allude to has been slowly weakened over the years.
In regards to your last sentence I'm not quite sure what you mean. I took it to mean that the social ideas of justice and law are different in China, of which I would tend to agree.
West = rule of law. China = rule by law.
Frankly I think Chinese society is just not ready for democracy. There is simply no civic society.
excluding those who've racked up points through submissions, the theory goes that high karma points = thoughtful poster.
thoughtful posters should thus realize that China is a country of 1.3 billion people, which highly highly complicates EVERYTHING.
Frankly, compared to the other 1 bln + country, I think China has done a remarkable job. Even if you just focus on the HR record, China is comparable to India, if not exceeding it.
The community has grown, and these restrictions aren't "indexed to inflation" so to speak, so the bar is lower all the time. Also, while I personally agree that downvotes should only be used for trollish things (or really just done away with in favor of flagging), that has never been universally agreed upon (and I have seen this topic come up a lot).
China is worse in regards to suppressing free speech and political dissidents. Everything else; poverty, crime, development India either lags or is just as bad.
It may even grow even faster if the caste system is abolished.
I think for a smooth transition, China needs to uplift its rural population. The urbanites are largely ready for democracy, but outside of a handful of cities the rest of the country simply do not have the institutions, social experience, etc to support a working transparent free-market democracy.
"Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter."
Tell me how China can democratize today without massive social upheaval? Tell me how this can be accomplished without throwing millions of Chinese back into poverty?
Thats the problem. China has 1.3 billion fucking people! The institutions in place are as fragile as the CCP (very). All sorts of social problems are on the verge ALL THE TIME of bubbling over.
Tell me how China can transition in the short-term before giving me these bullshit passionate appeals of "freedom" and "democracy".
Soundbytes sound GREAT. I personally LOVE them, but they add LITTLE to this debate.
I don't think the Letter From a Birmingham Jail is a soundbite, nor a "bullshit passionate appeal". It's worth reading in full: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...
You could argue that this applies to China. Change is long and slow, but there is progress being made. The situation today, even with its restrictions, is 100x better than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago. There is little reason to believe that it won't continue to improve.
The middle class is growing, people are increasingly more educated, these two things are major ingredients for democracy.
Why I think you're use of his Letter From Birmingham Jail is a "bullshit passionate appeal" is because the context that his letter was written in and the current Chinese climate are two different beasts.
Are my points that off? I'm surprised by how much opposition I've incurred on HN. The points I've raised and the arguments I've made are not radical. They are in fact widely accepted / endorsed by the majority of China scholars in the west.
I'm not a complete stranger to China. I've heard this same slow progress argument before. 10 years ago, "China's making progress", 20 years ago, "China's making progress". There's that horse and buggy pace. If China had made that much progress, they'd be there already. People in China in favor of democracy should have support, and "you're not ready for it" isn't support.
For the most part, the CCP and their decisions have been largely credited for China's stellar growth.
If you've ever been to China you'll quickly see why. If the government wants something done, its done. Case in point: 2008 Olympics, special economic zones, foreign exchange rate policies, etc.
Before kaifang (opening), China was ass-backwards. The CCP's sole claim to legitimacy is a bizzare positive-negative re-enforcement of two points:
1. Negative: China has been bullied by the world until the CCP came in 2. Positive: China is now an economic power because of CCP policies
The CPP uses these two points to bolster each other in linking CCP directly with nationalism so that pro-China = pro-ccp.
That's the point I'm trying to make. The CCP and their decisions have been credited for China's stellar growth because the CCP say it is so. I get the impression more than anything else that the policies related to kaifang (funny how they use house in that word) is the primary cause for China's growth. Everything else the CCP does is secondary to just the plain economic power you unleash by opening up China to the global market.
It makes perfect sense, of course, for the CCP to lay claim to all the growth. But just because it's happening doesn't mean it's happening because of them. You don't take credit for your boat's speed; not when said boat is on a particularly fierce river. You may take credit for the control of said boat, though ... but I'm not sure if the CCP is efficient enough to do more than the minimum on that. Particularly so with the bureaucracy and the corruption that is endemic to the system at the moment.
If the river dries up (which it won't) the CCP will find out just how efficient their policies really are. And then - and only then - they can argue that they're responsible for economic growth. All I'm saying is that right now it just seems that they're protected from their mistakes by the sheer power of their growing economy; and therefore you can't argue that the CCP's policies are good simply because China's economy is good.
Many nations have the ingredients for a robust economy; skilled labor, an abundance of resources, etc. but that doesn't guarantee anything.
A more apt analogy would be cooking. Simply having the right ingredients and throwing them in a pot won't magically transform them into a delicious dish. It takes a skilled chef to elevate individual ingredients to a combined dish.
There is a reason the Chinese economy has grown unchecked for the past 20+ years, surviving this recession and the 1997 asian financial crisis, while comparable economies took dives.
I could write paragraphs on why China's economic growth can be contributed to CCP policy but frankly there is enough documentation readily available on the web - much of it written by western academics.
To start, you can read about CCP policies on SEZs, exchange rate, NPL reform (once 20% of its total loan portfolio!!!), and its huge investments in green tech. The last of which is so much smarter than what our representatives in government are doing here in the states.
You're missing the point. Its not is China ready for democracy? but rather how can China transition to democracy smoothly without a total collapse of economic, political, and social institutions? ... as is so common in the historical record.
"Blocking it for too long increases the risk of a very violent transition. It's called revolution. "
Not true. Plenty of countries have transitioned from totalitarianism --> democracy slowly and smoothly. China's neighbors of S. Korea and Japan are two examples. You could argue that Taiwan applies as well.
The transition to democracy in most other countries was the result of great struggles, sometimes more violent, sometimes more peaceful, but I don't know of many cases in which those in power have simply announced one day that the time is now right for them to pass on their power to the people.
Your attitude is self defeating.
Both S. Korea and Japan transitioned from totalitarian governments to open democracies peacefully and smoothly. These transitions were stimulated in part by strong economies, a growing middle class, a more educated populace, etc.
But enough with examples. Tell me an actionable plan for China to transition to democracy. You're not offering anything but nice sounding sound bytes.
That and the people in China themselves are not fully clamoring for democracy. Economic progress, rise in standards of living, and a better future is what the Chinese want.
My attitude may be "self defeating" but your attitude is self-righteous.
http://gizmodo.com/5500578/google-would-remind-my-grandpa-of...
You may be right that democracy is not the word used by most Chinese to talk about what they want. Those who do use that word are brutally oppressed after all. But I'm sure the Chinese don't want corruption. I'm sure they're not happy if so much of the wealth ends up with the kids of party officials, which a recent study has shown. I'm sure they want rule of law so their homes cannot simply be expropriated if some bigwig wants to sell the land to BigCorp. I'm sure minorities like homosexuals (usually 10% to 20% of a population) in China do not want to be discriminated against. Democracy isn't just a "nice sounding sound byte". It's all of the above and it's very pragmatic. Just look at the correlation of wealth and democracy and compare that to the correlation of corruption, dictatorship and poverty.
But you know, I'm an individual, not some representative of a culture, so if you run out of arguments, please at least spare me the blanket colonialism argument. I wasn't there. Many dictators have been using it as an excuse for their crimes and you are buying it.
Look, we're both on the same page. Democracy in China is good. Demanding democracy is good.
The matter at hand is how best to transition to a true meaningful democracy. My point, that transition should come slow in order to minimize social/economic/political disruption is on point. EVERY prominent western publications agree on this matter.
Slow transition is pragmatic, and favoring it does not equate one to a CCP sympathizer nor is it self defeatist. Different strokes for different folks.
China has already proven that one can spur economic development by going its own way instead of following western policies. There is no reason to believe that it can't transition to a democracy there own way as well.
Your assertion that those in power do not want to give it up and a slow transition to democracy are not mutually exclusive. AGAIN many of China's neighbors have been able to make this transition so I don't see why this can't be done in China. True, dictators don't want to give up power. The trick is making them do so with non-violent disruptive means, and that can be achieved with a large middle class, educated polity, etc things that provide collective power to the masses.
I urge you to actually visit China and you'll see that not all people who use the word "democracy" are brutally oppressed. By god, even senior ranking members of the CCP have used the term during state speeches!
In regards to corruption you are right that its a big issue, although I know of no study that states the problem is as big as you make it. That said, do note that concentration of wealth/power among the social elite is an unfortunate part of reality the world over, the west included.
The main point though that I want to get across is that people like you, smart educated westerners, need to realize that the problems in China are not NEARLY at the level that the media presents it to be. Anyone who has visited China in the past few years can attest to this. Even in the countryside, many problems have been SEVERELY alleviated.
The problems you have listed and the China you have presented is really a caricature of present reality.
You say things are not as bad as I say. How do you know that? There is no free press. Bloggers are put in jail. The government runs massive censorship operations leading to Google's exit from China. You may not know everything that happens in the country. I for one do not know everything that happens in my country just from talking to friends and family.
If things are not as bad and everyone wants democracy anyway why is all that censorship and oppression of freedom of speech is necessary? I don't get the logic that this should be necessary to ensure a smooth transition to democracy. I think it is just an excuse and all the talk of China being so different and foreigners not understanding it is just one big excuse put forward by the very people who benefit from keeping the status quo. Of course senior officials keep talking about democracy. All communist regimes have always done that. They just define democracy in a way that is laughable.
A quick look at the wikipedia page for S. Korea also shows that it is not the shinging example of a smooth transition to democracy that you make it out to be. There's talk of coup d'etas, student uprisings, massive repression and large protests _demanding_ democracy. Also, their dictatorship was the result of war, not of ideological commitment.
Concentration of wealth is indeed controversial everywhere and I am very critical of what happens in the west in this regard. But the big difference is that in a democracy rules based on the will of the people and wealth is not usually concentrated in the hands of politicians and their families as is the case in China. Rules in China are based on the gun. China's government has no legitimacy to determine distribution of wealth and much less do they have a right to steal it for themselves. In fact they have no legitimacy to make any rules at all. I simply do not accept that they speak for the Chinese people. They speak only for themselves.
I do agree with you that a rising middle class and better education is the nucleus for democracy. That middle class will not want to have their wealth stolen by corrupt officials. Unfortunately, to a substiantial degree, the wealthy _are_ corrupt officials or people close to them. That's why I don't think a pseudo pragmatic "let's wait" approach is necessarily going to work. Such a defensive approach could just as well lead to China sinking deeper into corrupt cronyism and once growth slows down a bit the whole thing could blow up violently. You should at least consider that outcome a possibility. I think the Chinese leadership does consider that possibility and that may be why they are so desperately trying to oppress freedom of speech. They don't want people to see the full extent of corruption. They want them to believe what you believe, that it's all not that bad.
I don't claim to know enough about China at all. What I'm saying is that no one ever knows enough about any country to make accurate predictions and engineer a smooth transition to anything. Making claims about how one culture is "not ready" and stuff like that is suspicious in my eyes. My ancestors never believed that their home country would turn against them and kill them together with millions of others. That's why I think it is dangerous to go a slow unprincipled route, hoping it is the route to democracy.
What I do state unconditionally, accepting you may call it self-righteous, is this: There is never a historical or cultural situation in which opqueness and censorship leads to a better outcome. Covering up things leads to suspicion, envy, conspiracy theories, hidden interests, etc. I think these are social invariants. Making decisions based on more and better information is always preferrable to making them based on less and false information. That is my opinion and it is not based on anything specific to China. It's ideology if you will. Pragmatism that leads you to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 is faulty.
It's a bit complicated. Over the recent years, there is an increasing divide between two rival factions. One consists of the populists who rose through meritocracy, the others being the princelings, the unofficial aristocratic lineage of the communist upper-management.
The populists are the ones with engineering degrees. The princelings mostly have degrees in law, business, and the humanities.
What I don't understand is this retroactive, meaning domains previously registered will be required to provide such information. In some ways though I do think it is a well intentioned idea with requiring some higher level of verification to register a domain name. Assuming that is all it is...
Yeah, well ... the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
They already have enough to identify you, unless you've given a false name / address. In which case they would only have to track the financial transaction ... and impose a rule that domains with untraceable owners should instantly be terminated (and I think this already applies to all tlds).
What in the world do they need a picture for?
I guess it's for fast reaction times, to identify more efficiently when they send the police at your door. Or for increased levels of paranoia amongst the population, keeping you honest and all that.
What makes the whole thing skeptical and scary is that it is the government asking for this and not a specific registrar's policy.
But what good will that do?
Surely having a verifiable online ID might be useful in collaborating with other people that might need some assurance you're a real person that's accountable for his behavior.
But for domains, the only requirement should be as it is now ... that you must give accurate contact information. And asking for an address is too much for me anyway ... since if you're not careful about protecting it, you can become a target for maniacs (I'm still pretty pissed off about what happened to Kathy Sierra, which had the best blog I've ever read).
Either way, you won't get rid of spammers, fraudsters or jerkiness.