For a while, the Chinese government framed the continuing Internet censorship spat with Google as a business affair; however, now the argument is shaping up as one about human rights.
On Jan. 21, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made remarks on Internet Freedom, bringing up the Cold War rhetoric of a “descending curtain” that is now Internet censorship. She specifically named a number of countries where such practice is common – with China topping the list. Clinton’s speech was an appeal to human rights and freedoms. In fact, she even mentioned the Declaration on Human Rights:
Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.
The Chinese government quickly reacted to Clinton’s comments with a statement that appealed to the U.S. government “to respect the truth and to stop using the so-called Internet freedom question to level baseless accusations,” seemingly an attempt to return to square one—when the argument was a business one, not of human rights.
I am torn whether Americans are wanting to frame this as a human rights debate because they deeply value human rights, or because to do otherwise would expose the growing U.S. dependency on China. A similar argument would include not discussing trade relations due to the very real consequences that could be leveled should China change trade relations towards the U.S.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether free internet access is a human right, it seems that an argument could be made by tying the internet to the press, to free association, or to a free speech platform. Means questions arise, but it seems that if the internet is available, it should be viewed as an open resource.
In all of this though, I do not think that this began as a sincere concern for human rights on the part of Google. The company was perfectly amenable to going along with the Chinese policy. It was only when google accounts were affected that complaints arose. On the other hand though, maybe there is a significant difference between simply restricting access to the internet and actively attacking human rights activists and others through the internet. Also, it may matter that these were human rights activists' accounts. I would be interested to know if Google kept quiet in the face of any known attacks on average Chinese citizens, etc.