http://stanfordreview.org/

Courtesy of the ever-insightful James Fallows, here is one of several money quotes from Clinton’s ‘Internet Freedom’ speech:

“On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, but the United States does.”

Just in case anyone was in any doubt, China under CCP leadership are most definitely on the wrong side of this struggle for freedom, although Jackie Chan might disagree.

The Obama administration reached out to China on a range of issues – internet freedom among them – in an effort to shape a relationship of 21st century cooperation and engagement. This was apparently interpreted by Beijing as a sign of American weakness. As a consequence, the Chinese government have begun to strut with a troubling degree of arrogance in global affairs, and increased repression at home.

Most analysts predicted a bumpy immediate future for Sino-US ties. It might be bumpier than expected, especially if Beijing doesn’t learn to recognise a genuine American president when they meet one.

For now, a very one-sided honeymoon is over and the gloves are off.

So what next?

I would predict the usual nationalism-invoking rhetoric and belligerent posturing from Beijing, and a firmer stance from the Obama administration towards China that doesn’t include side-stepping a cordial invitation extended to the Dalai Lama.

Update

A very CCP response: ‘US guilty of internet imperialism’

It seems the Chinese government are really fine-tuning their sense of irony.

No, not gun running to Sudan, Burma, or Zimbabwe. Not even leaded toothpaste or enhanced dairy produce.

Worse.

The BBC have caught up with the self-evident fact that China expects the rest of the world to toe its domestic line by trying to dictate who, what, where, and how artists, humanitarians, writers, filmakers, and journalists can express themselves:

Bangladesh (news just in)

South Africa

France

Germany

Japan

Nepal

Taiwan

Lebanon

Australia

USA

More Australia (the first two comments on this site are priceless examples of the knucklehead variety)

Canada

The airwaves

Social networking

And on, and on, and on…

Newsflash for Beijing’s censorship peddlars: we’re not buying

In reverse order or, if you prefer, in ascending order of lunacy. Then again, one could quite easily reverse the reversal and still find ascending lunacy; such is the working of the cinematic overlord’s mind in China:

http://www.movieprop.com/

10. Seven Years in Tibet (1997) Jean-Jacque Annaud’s film dared to tell of the young Dalai Lama’s friendship with Austrian mountain climber Heinrich Harrer and the brutality dished out by the new communist rulers of China after 1949. The truth hurts, especially in Beijing. So intense was China’s pain that in retribution stars Brad Pitt and David Thewlis are currently serving lifetime bans. Too bad nobody cares.

9.  The Departed (2006) Martin Scorsese was already in China’s bad books for his biopic of the 14th Dalai Lama Kundun, and this film made the banned list for a passing reference to China’s purchasing of military equipment (damned if I can recall the scene). Setting aside Scorsese’s wanton disregard for state secrecy, how can anyone have a problem with a film starring Martin Sheen? Madness I tell you.

8. Brokeback Mountain (2005) Ang lee’s Oscar for his directing of homosexuality in a Stetson was celebrated (overlooking Lee’s Taiwanese status) in the Motherland as ‘China sticks it Uncle Sam in the imperialist’s own backyard’. After national pride subsided however, China banned the film for its portrayal of intra-masculine love. Perhaps the film’s theme hit a little too close to home for the boys at Zhongnanhai. More progressively, elsewhere in China the gay community is beginning to stand up.

7. Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (2003) In a petulant response that’s as ancient as the hills of Chinese history, Beijing took exception to what they considered a less than visually superlative portrayal of China. Jolie was so traumatised by this news that she sought solace in the arms of a fellow ‘enemy’ of China. I wonder if the Brangelina kids are banned by default?

6. Memoirs of a Geisha (2005) In a predictable move by censors that clearly have difficulty grasping the fundamentals of the cinematic medium and the roles of the actors bringing performances to our screens, China refused approval of Memoirs for Chinese audiences. It was felt that the sight of Ziyi Zhang and Gong Li giving satisfaction while playing Japanese women would induce national apoplexy in the Chinese populace. Go figure.

5. To Live (1994) Zhang Yimou’s widely acclaimed film is representative of the countless cinematic efforts that have touched upon the reality of life in China under Communist Party rule during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Our boys at HQ are as uncomfortable with accountability today as they were then. Consequently, To Live was banned and Zhang forced to write a formal apology. He also received a two year filmmaking ban for his honest portrayal of the trials of life during the Mao years. Long live the king.

4. Lost in Beijing (2007) As China careered towards Olympic infamy glory any depictions of Beijing that deviated from ‘gleaming modern metropolis’ were met with a clumsy swing of the jack boot from the censors. Thus,  Li Yu’s wonderfully evocative and moving low budget film was first heavily cut and then pulled completely. Unsurprisingly, but with unequivocal thuggish petulance, authorities further punished producer Fang Li and Laurel Films with a two-year ban. Somebody needs to remind SARFT that there exists a relationship between progress in the arts and the advance of civilisation.

3. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) Not banned in China but certainly tinkered with, despite the lack of laundry on a Shanghai washing line to complain about. China’s real problem with the movie is the paranoid perception of an undercurrent of American technological hegemony and military propaganda. Those boys really could do with a good night out, as could the author of the China Youth Daily op-ed (translation) and those who share the view of dark imperialistic deeds. Or even those that just like the idea.  Alternatively, they could just try to reverse engineer a Transformer in their spare time and sell it to the PLA. Problem solved.

2. Lust, Caution (2008) Another Ang Lee film upsetting Chinese sensibilities, but this time Beijing authorities (authority on what exactly isn’t clear) took exception to Tang Wei’s portrayal of a student activist who falls in love with a collaborator during the Japanese occupation. For that cinematic sin Tang was accused of ‘glorifying traitors and insulting patriots‘. In an act of sheer malice authorities banned the media from any mention or image of Tang Wei, and, taking their lead, the fenqing did the rest.

1. Ten Conditions of Love (2008) Jeff Daniels’ film tells the story of Rebiya Kadeer, who looks set to displace the Dalai Lama as China’s number one terrorist in exile. It’s OK to laugh; in fact, I encourage it. The ongoing Uighur furore is causing ruptured spleens throughout the Beijing hierarchy as Melbourne prepares to screen the film in what is sure to be a blaze of publicity. Strictly speaking the film is not banned from Chinese cinemas because I doubt that any application for approval has been submitted. There’s a reason for that. It’s the same reason that the Chinese government descends into adolescent tantrum whenever freedom of expression presents a view of the world contrary to the output of its propaganda department. I’m not the only one who finds this trend tiresome. My confidence in China’s ability to exercise restraint during the Melbourne festival, much less respect the rights of free expression outside its borders, is not high. Rebiya Kadeer has the right to be heard – she’s certainly not a terrorist – and Jeff Daniels’ film has a right to be screened and viewed. I urge Beijing to get used to those ideas.

She moved back to Lhasa, found a job at Tibetan Literature, a government-run journal, and began delving into the history and folklore of Tibet. In 2003, a publisher in Guangzhou put out her first book, “Notes on Tibet,” a collection of prose and short stories that quickly sold out. It was just before the second print run that the authorities took notice. They promptly banned the book, saying it contained “serious political mistakes.”

In their condemnation of the book, her employer, the Tibetan Literature Association, said she had glorified the Dalai Lama, harmed the solidarity of the nation and “exaggerated and beautified the positive function of religion in social life.” They demanded a confession of her errors. She refused, and found herself unemployed.

Since then Woeser has become a more vocal critic of the Chinese government’s Tibetan policy. And well she might, for unlike a billion of her countrymen, she’s seen the consequences for herself.

Well well! Whatever next? The king of martial arts mayhem has developed a latent tendency for brown-nosing by making some CCP-esque comments about freedom in China:

“I’m not sure if it’s good to have freedom or not,” Chan said. “I’m really confused now. If you’re too free, you’re like the way Hong Kong is now. It’s very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic.”

Chan added: “I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we’re not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”

Secretly, Chan has clearly always fancied himself as a tank driver. He’d have done a great job 20 years ago. 

Thankfully, those pesky, anarchic students in Hong Kong have got a different, less anally oriented message for China’s leaders: be accountable; do it now!

Students at a Hong Kong university have called for the Chinese government to be held accountable for events in Tiananmen Square 20 years ago.

The booklet will now be made, after students from eight universities in Hong Kong criticised what they said were efforts to suppress freedom of speech.

Only 79 out of almost 2,000 students in the University of Hong Kong students’ union voted against the motion.

Correspondents say the result shows the continued strength of feeling about the killings in Tiananmen Square.

The university vote has garnered a lot of local media attention, especially during this sensitive period for Beijing in the run-up to the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen protests.

“We have had lots of discussion at the university and have realised there is a lot of diversity of views,” said Vincent Fok, council chairman in the students’ union.

He said Hong Kong students were more well-informed about the events than their counterparts from the mainland.

The union leader, Ayo Chan Yi-ngok, is under pressure after saying that some student leaders in the 1989 protest had acted irrationally.

At the City University, a plan to issue a booklet about the Tiananmen Square protests was initially quashed by students who said the 1989 events were of little relevance.

Gotta be proud of those HK students as the CCP net draws tighter around them.

On a related note People’s Daily (what a crappy name for a dictator’s mouthpiece) is censoring the names Zhao Ziyang and Hu Yaobang. That’s what happens when a child’s mind controls the media.

Update

Predictably, there has been a backlash from people in Taiwan and Hong Kong (at whom Chan’s comments were directed) against Chan’s support for state repression. Silly bugger; I could have told him it’s a bad idea to upset your fan base. Need a new PR man, Jackie?

There’s a very intelligent discussion going on at cnreviews following Kai Pan’s article on this story. He is basically taking issue with the ‘western media take’ on Chan’s remarks. It’s well worth a read, as are the comments that follow, even if I can’t quite agree with his angle.