china
17 Mar 2008
Is Freedom Forever?
As China grows stronger it can afford to loosen its domestic policies on dissent and turn the tables on its Western critics, writes Philip Annetta
"We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail."So spoke George W Bush on the eve of the US's invasion of Iraq five years ago this week, in a typical example of US post-World War II rhetoric. Freedom has a powerful resonance with audiences in the Western world, as one of the features of our society that makes 'us' different from 'them'. And it is generally true that Western countries allow a higher degree of personal freedom - historically, freedom has been both a cause and a consequence of being a powerful country. But this means that not only are the facts more complex than the rhetoric, they are actually changing with shifts in global power. Nowhere is this becoming more recognisable than in comparing the situation in China with that of the Anglophone countries.
Freedom is one of the main issues the West uses to "express concern" (ie grandstand) about China's domestic policy. And China can of course be brutal - witness the most recent crackdown on protests in and related to 'autonomous' Tibet.
Online, we have seen some prominent examples of Chinese censorship because they were tied to US companies: Google censors its search results in the PRC, Yahoo seems to still be turning over users' private data, and as Antony Loewenstein wrote for newmatilda.com recently, the Chinese Government is getting even tougher in the lead up to the Olympic Games.
Away from the net, the Congressional-Executive Committee on China maintains comprehensive information on the ways free speech is suppressed in China. The US State Department cites "continuing concerns" in each update on human rights in China. For its part, the Chinese Government insists that human rights in the country have never been better.
According to Rob Gifford, a correspondent for NPR with extensive experience in China, speaking at a recent public forum in Hong Kong, these apparently conflicting statements are actually both true - meaning that as bad as the situation in China is, there has actually been some progress. More specifically, Gifford contextualised the issue within China's economic advance, saying that most people had focused on making money for the past decade but that free speech was now becoming more of an issue. The Chinese debate political reforms quite openly now, Gifford added, although only in the context of the one great untouchable: the one-party system.
Author Diane Wei Liang, who spoke in Hong Kong some time ago, broadly concurred: China, she said, had changed noticeably in this area every time she went back, and was very different from the country where she had stood on a tank during the Tiananmen Square uprising. Jung Chang's books (including the epic Wild Swans) are still banned in China, but the author herself can travel and speak freely in the country.
Recently, editors who pushed too many buttons with their articles have been fired, according to the Far Eastern Economic Review, but not imprisoned - more in line with the "gentle defenestration" practised by Western media outlets. (In an ironic twist not mentioned in the FEER article, one editor was fired when a young staffer allowed mothers of Tiananmen victims to place a full-page advertisement in his newspaper on the uprising's anniversary last year. How did it get through? The young staffer had never heard of it, and therefore didn't know that it was a banned subject.)
In all, China continues to be some way behind other countries, but is making progress (again, however, we must acknowledge the other set of rules for freedom of speech, religion and assembly in Tibet). And sometimes it has no choice - trying to close down wikileaks, for example, only resulted in people using mirrors to get to the site.
Can we say the same about progress in our own country and our older allies? Unfortunately not. The current world leader in freedom-regression is the US, with a litany of abuses so broad it is difficult to keep track. First, a few prominent examples:
Nobody apprehended by US authorities has an automatic right of habeas corpus, one of the foundations of Western law. There is illegal (retrospectively it may become legal, but would still be warrantless) domestic spying on all forms of communication, and foreign spying on certain forms, in collusion with large communication companies. People can be subjected to "extraordinary renditions" and torture (most often, but not exclusively, non-US citizens), and evidence in their "trials" deemed not particularly important. US citizens, according to the Department of Homeland Security, will soon need a national 'Real ID' to enter airports, and will also need to be approved for any air travel by the Department weeks in advance of each trip (as is the case in North Korea).
The conspiracy mill has also been working overtime on the lesser known developments such as NSPD-51, which continues the vaguely defined "national emergency" language of other executive (that is, unlegislated) directives. There's also Kellogg, Brown and Root's detention camps, of which Daniel Ellsberg said, "Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters ... They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo".
Speaking of dissenters, the best way to find them could be the dob-in-an-enemy 'Extremist Beliefs Commission', which will travel the country looking for people with radical views. Worried about the infrastructure in a post-scarcity society? No problem - private InfraGard agents can shoot anyone trying to access needed infrastructure in the event of, yes, a "national emergency".
The list goes on. Across the Atlantic, Tony Blair's Britain became a "surveillance society" - the most watched in the world. It boasts an "out of control stealth database" of citizens' DNA, has secret inquests and its own modern 'Star Chamber', where cases can be discussed without pesky prying eyes. No change yet under Gordon Brown's Prime Ministership.
In Australia, newmatilda.com readers will be familiar with the Howard Government's anti-terror legislation (I know of a Middle Eastern man who was dobbed in, whose house was searched without his consent and who is now on the watchlist after a verbal spat about trolley placement in a supermarket car park). For another, is the Northern Territory Intervention the tip of the iceberg? Unlike Howard's industrial relations laws, these ones don't seem to be candidates for rollback. It's not as long a list as that of the US, but then we had fewer rights to begin with.
Questioning these would normally be the job of a vigilant media; we, however, seem to have our own version of a 'one-party system', in which the system itself cannot be questioned (as there is no alternative), and any shortcomings of the system are regrettably necessary and unavoidable. Something similar happened in another country not too long ago.
But why would one country be opening up, however slowly, while others are closing? Again, this is related to the changing dynamic of global power. Historically, rises and falls among the most powerful countries led to wars - usually large coalition wars. Today, they generally do not; they lead to small-scale resource wars (often proxy wars) and large-scale economic and diplomatic conflict.
In this case particularly, the real causes are twofold: first, the Anglophone countries have for some time been losing their preeminent position in the world. Of course, they don't want this to happen and their attempt to prevent it is a war-based strategy straight out of imperial days, this time led by the US. This was a gamble that is not succeeding. And being an empire, as Chalmers Johnson and others old and new have observed, calls sooner or later for militarism and secrecy that are inimical to democracy.
Second, the main reason aside from war for countries becoming closed and clamping down on freedoms is foreign interference (or the fear thereof). The 20th century saw sundry examples of this - for one, Russia's putative allies in the First World War launched a brutal and extended invasion of that country to strangle the communist revolution at birth. Interestingly, many people still have never heard of this campaign, but it underpinned the Soviet Union's attitudes to both the West and to internal dissent throughout its lifespan. China was long a weakened victim of foreign interference, but as it grows stronger and charts its own course it can afford to both loosen up at home and turn the tables internationally.
In the near future, these trends seem set to continue. As long as China does not implode (the real threat here is dissatisfaction on the part of those 'left behind', as Gifford observed), and as long as the Anglophone countries are hitched to their doomed imperial strategy, the respective paths of freedom will converge - and, maybe, cross. Stranger things have happened.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Loved this article. It gives a more balanced view of ‘freedom’ in the world than is usually the case in the Western media.
America and Britain, etc, are mentioned as places where freedoms are disappearing as right-wing governments gain strength (what Rudd will do in this area remains to be seen) whereas China appears to be easing some of its restrictions as it embraces the scourge of capitalism.
The more things change…
www.dangerouscreation.com
Yeah, people might go on and on and on about the three thousand people executed each year in China (perhaps more this year, after the Lhasa disturbances) but then the very same people, capitalist lickspittles, forget about the horrific and brutal laws in this country where a person can have his house searched WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION !! And what would those same people say if they or their loved ones needed a body part ? Then they would keep quiet, I’m sure.
Look at all the countless times in US history when the Army tanks are called out after riots and demonstrations, to brutally suppress the people, so nobody can criticise the brave and freedom-loving Chinese people when far, far worse things happen here and in the US, every day. Surely the handful of people put into Chinese prison labour camps (six million out of 1,500 million is hardly a large proportion, not even one per cent !) is nothing compared to the daily harassment of so many Australians and Americans on nothing more than the mere suspicion of involvement with crime or terrorism.
And some people might carp about the tiny handful of Chinese peasants, with their outdated technology, who have been re-located to make way for shopping malls and universities and other socially valuable projects, which use the land much more effectively. They completely forget that, in a proud and dynamic nation of one and a half billion people, the greater good must come first, and anyway barely one or two percent are affected each year, sometimes less. What do the same people, apologists for Wall Street, say about the housing crisis in the US ? What do they say about that ? What do they say about relocating people from New Orleans ? What do we hear ? Dead silence !
And anyway, in both the US and Australia, brutal imperialists massacred the Indigenous people in vast, unheard-of numbers, until the main rivers ran red with their blood for weeks at a time. Then they ploughed their bones and skulls into the ground to eliminate their crimes and fertilise the soil. So we can’t talk about brutality in China when that sort of thing happens (or will happen in the next few weeks).
Ant the Tibetan people, so small in numbers, have repeatedly said that they are quite happy to remain part of the Chinese motherland forever, and to learn from and give way to their Chinese brothers and sisters on matters of national importance.
And anyway, self-determination and independence are such bourgeois concepts, which hark back to the illusions of early capitalism, and have no place in a modern and dynamic world. In fact, they are reactionary ideals, justifying correction behaviour.
Yeah, right.
Joe
Thanks for taking the time to post such a long comment, Joe, but you might have missed my point. I’m not auditing where each country is at the moment - it’s stating the bleeding obvious to say that the Anglophone countries are freer than China (as long as you’re living in them, not under them) - I’m saying that China seems to be going forward whereas the others seem to be going backward. If it keeps going just like it is, it’ll probably still take some time before they’re really comparable, but then history’s full of surprises like that, isn’t it?
Cheers
Phil Annetta
http://philannetta.blogspot.com
Well, Phil, I hope I live that long. I hope that Tibet and Turkestan have the same opportunities to be self-determining as Ireland and India and East Timor and Kosova, that the people there eventually have some say over their own destiny instead of forever being a colony of some other far bigger power. On the one hand, as Brendan Behan wrote about Ireland:
Oh, the sea, the sea, the beautiful sea,
Long may it flow between England and me,
God help the poor Scottish, they’ll never be free,
But we’re surrounded by water.
But on the other, even Scotland may have the opportunity to choose its own path. And I think that freedom from England would be high on their agenda, even as the EU renders complete independence less salient. Just as independence from China would be high on the agenda of most Tibetans. Perhaps higher, after yet more Chinese ‘moderation’. No, I don’t think China will ever, ever become a more liberal society vis-a-vis Tibet. The imperialist virus is very hard to eradicate: Paul thinks that robbing Peter to pay Paul is such a wonderful idea.
Joe
It seems to me that as the West gets weaker and other countries grow in strength we, in the West, become more draconian and those gaining strength can become more relaxed. We are entering a century of multiple powers not just those of the cold war Russia and America and then American alone, but now China, China and Russia in alliance, India , a much enlarged Europe, Japan,China with Africa and Russia etc. Much of the economy of the West, specially America, is in hock to China. Ironic that globilsation of capital may be our undoing.
Yes, and all capitalist economies - China, Russia, Japan, India, Europe - and all with imperialist leanings: note that the Taiwanese (as good Chinese who believe in the right of China to forcibly incorporate Tibet and Turkestan) have voted strongly for greater ties with China. Robbing Peter always has Paul’s fervent support.
But these powers are not necessarily all buddies: they will do the good old imperialist thing and contend with each other over territory and resources and a better P/E ratio. Marx and Lenin got that bit right.
Last year, China had an inflation rate of close to eight per cent, but a GDP growth rate of eleven per cent, effectively only three per cent - and the population grew by around one per cent. So real growth was only about two percent: so is the Chinese economy actually faltering ? I’m not sure which I fear most: a rampant China or a faltering China.
That might be a worry that is going through the minds of Tibetans (and perhaps Chinese working people as well) as well: which China would be more repressive ?
Joe