As I've been conducting my research on China's use of technology, I came across an individual whose area of expertise supports well my area of interest. John Tkacik Jr. is a former U.S. Diplomat specializing in foreign policy and relations with China. Under the Clinton adminstration, Mr. Tkacik served as the Chief of China Intelligence in the U.S. Department of State. Now retired from active positions in diplomacy, he is a Research Fellow for The Heritage Foundation, and his article "China's Orwellian Internet" has already played integral roles in earlier posts.
The article "China's Orwellian Internet", however, was written in 2004. Hoping to hear Mr. Tkacik's opinion on more recent issues, I sent the following e-mail this afternoon:
Mr. Tkacik,
Like you, I have had the opportunity to spend a portion of my life in Asia; I lived in Taiwan for nearly 18 months and entertain thoughts for a future life on the mainland. Though your experience dwarfs that of my own, I, too, understand and appreciate the distinctive nuances of the Chinese people. I have since returned, an am currently completing my undergraduate studies in English at Brigham Young University.
It was my experience in Asia which has cultivated my current interest in the diverse issues facing both China and Taiwan. Since my return from Asia six months ago, I have engaged myself in amateur research examining China's state policies through the interpretive lenses of George Orwell's text, 1984. Specifically, I am exploring the paradoxical images associated with the Internet; human rights optimists rally behind the Internet as a weapon to attack Communism's totalitarian rule, while others realize the manipulative grip the government exercises over this digitalized method of expression as it would any other. The underlying thesis of my research is to explore the role the Internet plays against the predictions made by Orwell himself: does the advent of new technology reason an incarnation of Orwell's totalitarian state as impossible or inevitable?
It should come as little surprise that my research brought me to your door. I recently discovered your article "China's Orwellian Internet" and in your arguments found evidence to support my own. Like you, I am forced to see the Internet as another method to secure government power. Though I can empathize with those who optimistically hope the Internet will provide an avenue of free speech, my research has repeatedly proven otherwise. Referring again to your article "China's Orwellian Internet," I was particularly impressed with your numerous accounts of those individuals found on the wrong side of government favor; I have continued researching similar veins and have been particularly impressed by the government response to, as Orwell would say, thought criminals, such as Gao Zhisheng and Liu Xiaobo.
Your time, I understand, is extremely valuable; I would not want to take away from projects of larger importance. However, as your time allows, I would be very interested to hear further thoughts on the role Internet is playing in China. Do you still see it as a machine hurdling the government toward the totalitarian regime predicted by Orwell, or do you think it has already arrived? Or, contrastingly, it is really the beacon of free speech and free though so many wish it to be?
As a final thought, I have included a substantial portion of "China's Orwellian Internet" on a blog designed solely for recording my research. If you feel so inclined, it may be read under the post Thoughtcrime on the Internet on my blog New Experimentation.
Again, Mr. Tkacik, I thank you for your time and, if available, hope to hear further your thoughts on the state of affairs in China.
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to love--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized. George Orwell, 1984
The Naivety of Optimism
The Internet has become a source of optimism; perceived as an un-muzzled arena catering to the thoughtful musings, the witty antidotes, the scholarly debates, the livid cursings of both the individual and public en masse, the Internet is a free forum yielding to any thought spanning the mundane to the prolific. In the spirit of brother’s keeper, many have viewed the Internet’s infinite cyberspace as an alternate world offering freedoms and humanity denied in many regions of the physical sphere.
The truly optimistic find hope for rebellion and revolution, masked in the ambiguity of online anonymity, to finally topple the states that would deny elemental rights of humanity. If there is hope, it lies in the Internet. Such is optimism. While the Internet offers an alternative sphere of existence, China has exercised the well-attached puppet strings: the Internet it is a sphere that may be controlled like any other.
The Great Firewall of China
Most succinctly articulated by a USA Today correspondent, “No one does it quite like China, which has proved that old-school communist apparatchiks could tame something as wild as the Web.” China’s Internet is guarded by a strict set of filters and firewalls. Appropriately dubbed the Great Firewall, it has been the barrier which restricts the content available to the masses. Though it is by no means foolproof, the Great Firewall has been instrumental in exercising governmental control over the seemingly infinite void: the Internet.
Along with generic content filtering, blocking banned subjects such as the Dali Lama and the Tiananmen Square Massacre as well as social networking tools Google and Facebook, the Internet is privy to virtual raids-of-sort. Every personal article, blog, chat room discussion, e-mail—in short, any form of electronic communication—is available to official scrutiny. If not meeting the government’s ever-changing definition of acceptable opinion, in an instant the renegade comment may be altered, substituted, or deleted by government hands.
Many bloggers and online participants are often ambivalent to the government’s restrictions; harmless blogs receive the ax with neither explanation nor justification, while other sites, such as that maintained by Chinese blogging sensation Han Han, seem to dance on the government’s patience by flaunting disrespect to the murky lines established by the authorities. Once examined within context, however, an altered or deleted blog is comparatively small beans to the measures taken against those whispering threats against government omnipotence.
The Harassment, Disappearance, Arrest, and Imprisonment of Thought Criminals
In many instances, mere screening of online communication fails to satiate the government’s appetite for order; many individuals wake to find themselves, surprisingly, identified by the government as dissidents. Journalists and reporters are particularly susceptible to falling out of favor amid a government of shifting opinion. As described in the New York Times article China’s Censors Tackle and Trip Over the Internet, “Journalists and Internet publishers often discover that they have crossed the line only after their online presence is blocked, their bylines are blacklisted or they are detained or summoned to ‘tea’ with government security officers who deliver coy but unmistakable warnings.” For some, the trouble, albeit inconvenience, ends with a warning; others are not so fortunate.
A Research Fellow for the Heritage Foundation and expert on China, John Tkacik, Jr., recorded such instances of aggressive government intervention:
In April 2004, The Washington Post described a typical cyberdissidence case involving a group of students who were arrested for participating in an informal discussion forum at Beijing University. It was a chilling report that covered the surveillance, arrest, trial, and conviction of the dissidents and police intimidation of witnesses.
Yang Zili, the group's coordinator, and other young idealists in his Beijing University circle were influenced by the writings of Vaclav Havel, Friedrich Hayek, and Samuel P. Huntington. Yang questioned the abuses of human rights permitted in the "New China." His popular Web site was monitored by police, and after letting him attract a substantial number of like-minded others, China's cyberpolice swept up the entire group. Relentlessly interrogated, beaten, and pressured to sign confessions implicat¬ing each other, the core members nevertheless with¬stood the pressure. The case demonstrated that stamping out cyberdissent had become a priority state function. According to the Post, Chinese leader Jiang Zemin considered "the investigation as one of the most important in the nation." In March 2003, the arrestees were each sentenced to prison terms of between eight and ten years-all for exchanging opinions on the Internet.
Then there is the case of Liu Di, a psychology student at Beijing Normal University who posted Internet essays under the screen name of Stainless Steel Mouse. She is an exception among cyberdis¬sidents-after a year behind bars, she is now out of jail. The then 23-year-old Liu was influenced by George Orwell's 1984 and became well known for her satirical writing and musings on dissidents in the former Soviet Union. She defended other cyberdissidents, supported intellectuals arrested for organizing reading groups, attacked Chinese chauvinists, and, in a spoof, called for a new polit¬ical party in which anyone could join and every-one could be "chairman." Arrested in November 2002 and held for nearly one year without a trial, she became a cause célèbre for human rights and press freedom groups overseas and apparently gained some notoriety within China as well. Although she had been held without trial and was never formally charged, she was imprisoned in a Beijing jail cell with three criminals. In December 2003, she was released in anticipation of Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to the U.S. Yet nine months after returning to the Beijing apartment that she shares with her grandmother, Liu still finds police secu¬rity officers posted at her home. She has found it impossible to find a regular job, and police moni¬tors block her screen name Stainless Steel Mouse from Web sites.
On July 31, 2004, hundreds of villagers of Shiji¬ahecun hamlet in rural Henan province demon¬strated against local corruption. Provincial police from the capital at Zhengzhou dispatched a large anti-riot unit to the village, which attacked the crowd with rubber bullets, tear gas, and electric prods.[12] Propaganda officials immediately banned media coverage of the incident, and the outside world might not have learned of the clash if an intrepid local "netizen" had not posted news of it on the Internet. The Web correspondent was quickly identified by Chinese cybercops and arrested during a telephone interview with the Voice of America on August 2. While the infor¬mant was on the phone with VOA interviewers in Washington, D.C., he was suddenly cut short, and the voice of a relative could be heard in the back¬ground shouting that authorities from the Internet office of the Zhengzhou public security bureau (Shi Gonganju Wangluchu) had come to arrest the interviewee. After several seconds of noisy struggle, the telephone connection went dead.
The government is a staunch defender of its puppetized-internet. Wielding an army of cybercops 30,000 strong and counting, such aggressive measures are well within the reach of government power. While, admittedly, the examples provided by John Tkacik, Jr. are reasonably dated; current events, however, have proven government aggression against cyber dissidents, a more modern interpretation of Orwell’s thought criminals, remains as hostile as ever.
The Case of Liu Xiaobo
In December of 2008, one of China’s most prominent human rights activists Liu Xiaobo was taken by authorities for his involvement in contraband thought article “Charter 08.” Calling for sweeping government reforms, such as an end to one party rule, “Charter 08” rallied support after its appearance on the Internet. Only days after its online publication, Mr. Liu was taken from his home by authorities; following his abduction, he was kept for six months without official charges or trial. The authorities eventually channeled Mr. Liu through the judicial system, charging Mr. Liu with “incitement to subvert state power” and sentencing him to eleven years in prison. The following report offers more perspective into the reactions of Mr. Liu’s supporters, as well as the displeasure of foreign embassies:
As U.S. Embassy Officer Gregory May succinctly stated in the featured news clip, "Persecution of individuals for the expression of political views is inconsistent with Internationally recognized norms of human rights." For all the weight the sentiment has carried, however, one may just as well say, "Liu Xiaobo is another victim of the system. Nothing more to be done."
Another Winston Smith has played his part in the idealistic war against Big Brother; another last man in China has found a voice and is paying for it. Facing the red giant--its cyber(thought)police, powers of surveillance, destruction of individual rights to privacy and humanity, and stone-cold intolerance--can there be an alternative ending to the story? Who can argue with George Orwell?
I was searching for any event or gathering concerning censorship in China when I came across an interesting article. Last Friday marked the 21st year since the massacre at Tienanmen Square in Beijing. As the events of early June 1989 are denied by the government, commemorating the anniversary openly was out of the question. However, many individuals used the social network Foursquare as a sort of virtual gathering. The network allows for friends to "check in" with their location; on Friday, many were checking in from Tienanmen Square.
No physical demonstration, but even a virtual gathering caught the government's sensitive eye. The virtual gathering did not sit well with the government, who blocked Foursquare before the day was through.
China's censorship is the creator of many problems, it seems. There is the fabrication of news and history, the infusion of pro-Communism propaganda, the unapologetic suppression of individual thought, and, least we forget, the blatant disregard for human rights. All these issues aside, however, it seems censorship is finally creating a problem the government is truly scared of: a mass exodus of brain power.
Hong Kong remains an extremely distinct and privileged city; until 2047, it retains freedoms foreign to the mainland. Hong Kong enjoys freedom of speech, multiparty government, and, most important to China's brightest minds, uncensored Internet. The most elite, most promising, most resourceful students compete for admission to Hong Kong universities, and who could blame them? In Hong Kong students have free access to Google, Twitter, and similar sites now replacing vintage forms of communication and research.
The problem facing mainland China, then, is quite predictable; having the opportunity to cross the Great Firewall of China and enjoy the freedoms from censorship, students typically do not boomerang back to their native mainland. The article Censorship causing brain drain in China? remarks on the low percentage of returning graduates: "With new freedom at hand, only a few fresh HKU (Hong Kong University) graduates have returned to the mainland. Last year, only 3 percent of HKU graduates from mainland China returned home to look for a job." China is loosing its greatest minds.
China has tried to implement incentives for returning graduates, trying to coax back their experienced graduates, but government efforts have had little effect. On a large percentage, those students who study either in Hong Kong or abroad are not keen to return. In a country whose pride lies in the resources (exploited or otherwise) of its people, this loss seems to be the greatest problem eating China. It may not think twice about the twice-stomped rights of humanity, but a brain drain is like a festering wound.
A Touch of Background A few months ago, I was an avid reader of the New York Times; I had just returned to the United States after a substantial stint in Taiwan, and found myself engrossed with any news at all pertaining to Asia. My fascination was chiefly concerned with the happenings of Taiwan and China, and my dedication to the New York Times regularly rewarded me with plenty of reading material.
At the time, China was a hot topic of both conversation and controversy as its rocky relationship with the global company Google started attracting attention. Unwanted notice followed as journalists highlighted the government’s thorough system of Internet filtering, a process government leaders deny with the repetition characteristic of broken records. As I read headlines and articles, I could not help but find an eerie-sort of familiarity resonating between the Chinese government and the dark totalitarian world depicted by George Orwell in his epic novel, 1984.
The Comparison Explored
I do not pretend this is a novel comparison; I am not the first and most certainly will not be the last individual to see the red giant as a shadow of Orwell’s dark utopia, but I could not help but see the parallel images created by China’s numerous propaganda departments and 1984’s Ministry of Truth. The Ministry of Truth is one of four governing ministries which promulgate the power of a totalitarian government. While other ministries concern themselves with war, famine, and torture, the Ministry of Truth is concerned with information-control. Utilizing, ironically, a complex system of fabrication and deceit, the Ministry of Truth is able to manufacture truth.
Using rudimentary tools applicable to Orwell’s mid-twentieth century understanding of technology, 1984's government employees, known as Party members, alter, destroy, distort, and otherwise fabricate any part or portion of media deemed unsatisfactory by the leaders of the nation. The range of influence is baffling; This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs—to every kind of literature or documentations which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. All this is accomplished without the scope of technology now taunting governments of similar sentiments.
Legitimate Fears? My thoughts as I scanned the series of newspaper articles frequently returned to a dominant vein of questions: will our contemporary technological advancements permit the creation of the totalitarian super-body envisioned by George Orwell? Will technology, with its intricate system of loopholes and bypassed firewalls allow for a rebellion considered impossible in Orwell’s world? Or, conversely, does technology prove totalitarianism’s best friend, creating a government force capable of omniscience surpassing that feared by Orwell himself? What role does technology have in dictating power distribution? With a nation saturated with the advancements of technology, is China’s totalitarian transformation an impossibility or inevitability?
These themes deserve a more calculated look. The following posts will discuss these questions in greater detail:
Thus far, this blog has served as an expansive space to explore, in a sense, my research and own thoughtful musings. I have been researching the role Internet and new media play in the lives of the Chinese people and in their powerhouse government. More specifically, I have been examining new media from the perspective of the spectrum's counterpoints: an avenue for rebellion among the underground (emerging?) human rights activists or a seemingly invincible government weapon capable of annihilating any hope for revolution.
I can honestly say I approached the research process with as little bias as possible. I had never really studied the freedoms either opened or barricaded by the contrastive uses of media. I tried to understand the activities on both sides of the spectrum as well their respective repercussions. I am sorry to say, however, that in true Orwellian style, the government remains the victor.
If you have never read George Orwell's 1984, you may want to stop reading now.
In an oddly transcendent sort of way, realizing the seemingly impenetrable power China holds with its mouse and keyboard took me back to the night I finished Orwell's 1984 for the first time. It was some years ago, but I can still remember my hopeful naivety as I struggled through the last chapter. I still, in a way, hoped for redemption, but with every paragraph, every sentence, realized it would not come. I believe I even cried a little when I finally put the book down and accepted Orwell's future hell. Focusing on China, now, and finding myself nose to nose with a manifestation of Orwell's prediction is quite an unsettling experience, to say the least.
I wanted to be wrong; I wanted Orwell to be wrong. I wanted technology, new media, these creations unpredicted and unforeseen by Orwell, to somehow defy any government's efforts to establish totalitarianism. However, I have to return to Orwell again, I have to admit defeat again and resign my naivety yet again. China is as Orwell predicted; new media, Internet, technological advances have served Big Brother well.
As I've been conducting my research on China's use of technology, I came across an individual whose area of expertise supports well my area of interest. John Tkacik Jr. is a former U.S. Diplomat specializing in foreign policy and relations with China. Under the Clinton adminstration, Mr. Tkacik served as the Chief of China Intelligence in the U.S. Department of State. Now retired from active positions in diplomacy, he is a Research Fellow for The Heritage Foundation, and his article "China's Orwellian Internet" has already played integral roles in earlier posts.
