This is not a criticism, it is a reminder.
In response to
Google's latest stance and the company's intention to withdraw from operation in China, I hope to offer a little of my personal insight on the situation.
"Google's threat to end its operations in China over censorship and computer-security concerns could embarrass communist leaders who crave international respect." (Yahoo News)
Here is the assumption — that Chinese leaders are concerned with the way they look to the rest of the world. I don't disagree with this, but the assumption has no weight to it unless we ask how
much do these leaders crave international respect? And in what form?
"The possibility of Google leaving China, [Hecaitou] said, would send a message to Chinese leaders intent on imposing greater restrictions online. Or at least he hoped it would." (The New York Times)
This is my point. If Google's purpose is to make Chinese authorities rethink censorship, will pulling out of the country accomplish that? You can only hope.
Google's stance strikes me as a very American one. Let me expand on what I meant by that statement before my fellow Americans all leap for my throat and strangle me for being a red traitorous commie bastard. During the latter half of the 20th century, the United States favored the use of sanctions against certain countries in hopes to contain the spread of Communism as well as to starve it out of those countries that harbored the Communist form of government. Emphasis on the word "starve". We're familiar with the "commercial, economic, mental, physical, emotional, and financial embargo" that the U.S. imposed on Cuba (
Wikipedia), the former Soviet Union (
American Foreign Relations), China (
Economic Cold War), and North Korea (
Global Policy Forum). For the most part, these embargoes, some of them continuing on into the present day, have accomplished the effect of making these countries' citizens very poor and very, very hungry.
(For the other part, it has taught a new generation of Americans that Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and North Korean
people* are dangerous and mean us harm.)
Sanctioning a country, cutting it off from global trade, has the expected outcome of crashing that country's economy and tormenting your run-of-the-mill person living there who — given that there's a centralized government in place, hence the sanction come on let's be intuitive here — can't really do a thing about it. Except starve and die in large masses.
America's aim in all of these cases was the byproduct of the sanction, which was the impact it would
hopefully have on the folks in charge of the aforementioned countries. Or maybe America hoped all the very hungry people would somehow put together a full-scale revolution. It doesn't matter. Both hopes are naive and unrealistic. In the first case, America has to rely entirely on these leaders' consciences, that seeing their people suffer would make them want to have a 180 degree attitude change. In the second case, at least from my experience, hunger makes people weak and more inclined to go to sleep and sometimes never wake up and less inclined to overthrow a very powerful government.
I'm not making a ludicrous claim here, am I? Please by all means correct me if I am.
"If Google pulls out of China, the door may close permanently." (Abc News)
Let me wrap up this horrible extended metaphor and get back to my point. I'm wondering right now if Google's action (not intention,
action) is essentially one of protest or one of abandonment. For those who don't know, only 30-something percent of Chinese netizens use Google; the dominant search engine in China is baidu. If the government makes nothing of the international pressure that ensues, wouldn't Chinese netizens simply be abandoned to a more absolute sphere of censorship?
(I know the old unspoken adage, don't ask questions you don't already have the answers to. How embarrassing to blog about an issue when you can't offer a better solution! Talk about losing internet street cred. Good thing I don't have to worry about that. I don't make a dent on the internet, and I don't have to believe what I'm told. So I'll try actually asking a question that I want answers to.)
*
Mothers, fathers, grocers, schoolchildren, firemen, taxi drivers, window cleaners, painters, piano tuners, archaeologists, linguistics professors, fishermen, mailmen, preschool teachers, athletes, babysitters, dancers, fashion designers, gardeners, hairdressers, librarians... You watch out for those communist librarians! They're packing heat and like to eat your unborn children.For more information...
Financial TimesSeeking AlphaPC WorldU.S. Department of the State