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.

His name is Liu Xiaobo.

He asked for a constitution that would protect the rights of Chinese citizens.

He held the view that governmental accountability and rule of law are fundamental requirements of a civilised society.

He wanted a better deal for the Chinese people.

He expressed these views in a document.

For that crime, on this day, he’s been jailed for 11 years.

Update

This is what James Fallows had to say on the matter (emphasis mine):

There is nothing about his life, work, or efforts that a truly confident government should fear. That the Chinese government cannot tolerate his views speaks volumes.

There is much to admire in modern China, and even more to sympathize with in the aspirations and efforts of its people. But this is a reminder of what is wrong with the way it is run, and is a moment that friends of China and of Chinese people should note, regret, and deplore.

Amen to that.

Update 2

An article by Custer at ChinaGeeks has summarised things very well. It is both sad and typical that so many of the comments on this piece seek to distract from the debate by pointing fingers anywhere but Zhongnanhai. Hat tip to Jeremiah for pointing the way.

http://www.chinabooks.ch/

The law in China may be developing fast, but that development is going to have to overcome a couple of stumbling blocks before changes to the judicial system can be taken seriously by both Chinese and non-Chinese alike.

First, Chinese citizens need confidence that the law will be enforced without discrimination and that the country’s legal famework exists for their protection. And that’s a hard sell because…

Second, the law must be seen to uphold the rights of  the people as prescribed by the constitution of the People’s Republic of China.

Let’s take a closer look at articles 33-56, with the money quotes in bold.

CHAPTER II. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS

Article 33. All citizens of the People’s Republic of China are equal before the law. Every citizen enjoys the rights and at the same time must perform the duties prescribed by the Constitution and the law. The State respects and preserves human rights (2004 amendment).

Comment: With Chinese jurisprudence barely out of diapers I think it would be better if citizens were to get into legal shape by beginning to view themselves as equal before each other (scroll down to “widespread contempt for others”). As for the 2004 amendment about human rights, I can only assume that someone put that in for a laugh.

Reality rating: 1/5

Justification of rating: I decided to award a point because China’s leaders have occasionally demonstrated a willingness to be indiscriminate in their dealings with the citizenry.

Article 34. All citizens of the People’s Republic of China who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and stand for election, regardless of nationality, race, sex, occupation, family background, religious belief, education, property status, or length of residence, except persons deprived of political rights according to law.

Comment: Use random selection to stop an adult in any Chinese street and ask them when they last exercised their constitutional right to stand for election or vote. Expect 1) laughter at the silly question, 2) confusion as to the meaning of the question, or 3) detention without trial.

Reality rating: 1/5

Justification of rating: It really deserves a zero rating for its allusion to democratic principles, but there are village elections that people can get involved with. It’s a start, I guess.

Article 35. Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Comment: Wow! This the big one. Never in the history of constitutional documentation has so much bullshit been so brazenly encompassed in 23 words. This is why rule of law in China is going to be a difficult birth; it’s going to require judicial independence before a constitutional lawyer can defend the rights enshrined in article 35. Lovely words, though.

Reality rating: 0/5

Justification of rating: This one deserves less than zero, but I think my readers know me better than to see me go negative.

Article 36. Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.

Comment: I think they missed a bit – the part where it says “freedom to worship the CCP to the exclusion of all others”.

Reality rating: 1/5

Justification of rating: article 36 uses the word ‘freedom’. Once you’ve done that, any violation of that principle automatically renders the words meaningless. Religious practice is tolerated to a degree in China, but practitioners are routinely harassed, arrested, or intimidated. And if you get too popular you get branded either a cult or a terrorist organisation. Hallelujah.

Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People’s Republic of China is inviolable. No citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people’s procuratorate or by decision of a people’s court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ. Unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens’ freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited; and unlawful search of the person of citizens is prohibited.

Comment: If you say so, boys.

Reality rating: o.5/5

Justification of rating: There are occasions when China doesn’t restrict freedom through detention ‘or other means’.

Article 38. The personal dignity of citizens of the People’s Republic of China is inviolable. Insult, libel, false charge or frame-up directed against citizens by any means is prohibited.

Comment: Unless you disagree with the government, in which case your dignity means jack shit.

Reality rating: 0/5

Justification of rating: I’m right.

Article 39. The home of citizens of the People’s Republic of China is inviolable. Unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a citizen’s home is prohibited.

Comment: It seems the government is having difficulty getting the word out.

Reality rating: o.000001/5

Justification of rating: The Article is fullof crap, but I concede that Hu Jintao’s residence is probably inviolable.

Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People’s Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens’ correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offences, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law.

Comment: Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Thank you.

Reality rating: 0/5

Justification of rating: Some would argue America would score only 1/5 here; China are worse offenders, ergo… Some of the issues facing lawmakers discussed here.

Article 41. Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary; but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited. In case of complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens, the state organ concerned must deal with them in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them. Citizens who have suffered losses through infringement of their civil rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.

Comment: Then this must be wrong.

Reality rating: 0/5

Justification of rating: Of course they feckin’ don’t

Article 42. Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the right as well as the duty to work. Using various channels, the state creates conditions for employment, strengthens labour protection, improves working conditions and, on the basis of expanded production, increases remuneration for work and social benefits. Work is the glorious duty of every able-bodied citizen. All working people in state enterprises and in urban and rural economic collectives should perform their tasks with an attitude consonant with their status as masters of the country. The state promotes socialist labour emulation, and commends and rewards model and advanced workers. The state encourages citizens to take part in voluntary labour. The state provides necessary vocational training to citizens before they are employed.

Comment: Well, there you have it.

Reality rating: 4/5

Justification of rating: One mark lost because clearly some are not satisfied with being “masters of the country.” Still others seem to interpret ”encouraging voluntary labour” as the right to enslave. I refer all people working in state enterprises to Article 33. Oh, wait. Some are more equal than others. Right?

Article 43. Working people in the People’s Republic of China have the right to rest. The state expands facilities for rest and recuperation of working people, and prescribes working hours and vacations for workers and staff.

Comment: It’s true. Migrant workers are treated to wholesome meals three times a day, comfortable accommodation, and adequate R & R. Or not.

Reality rating: 1/5

Justification of rating: Labour laws are improving slowly, which is why Article 43 doesn’t get a zero rating.

Articles 44-47: Nothing of note here; a few more fancy words. See for yourself.

Article 48. Women in the People’s Republic of China enjoy equal rights with men in all spheres of life, political, economic, cultural and social, and family life. The state protects the rights and interests of women, applies the principle of equal pay for equal work for men and women alike and trains and selects cadres from among women.

Comment: It’s not true in America. It’s probably not true in Sweden. And it sure as hell aint true in China. Besides, why is there a need for this distinction at all? Don’t articles 33 and 34 pretty much take care of this one?

Reality rating: 1/5

Justification of rating: Who are they trying to convince? Interesting discussion here.

Article 49. Marriage, the family, and mother and child are protected by the state. Both husband and wife have the duty to practise family planning. Parents have the duty to rear and educate their minor children, and children who have come of age have the duty to support and assist their parents. Violation of the freedom of marriage is prohibited. Maltreatment of old people, women and children is prohibited.

Comment: Sounds a lot like Utopia, but then things like this happen

Reality rating: 0/5

Justification of rating: No points for forcibly removing and drowning an eight month old foetus (see above link).

Article 50. The People’s Republic of China protects the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese nationals residing abroad and protects the lawful rights and interests of returned overseas Chinese and of the family members of Chinese nationals residing abroad.

Comment: Really? How very ambitious. I think efforts would be better spent protecting the legitimate rights of domestic citizens.

Reality rating: 2/5

Justification of rating: It may seem a bit generous, but the Chinese government do kick up an almighty din when it’s perceived that their citizens are being treated unfairly overseas. Too much din in my humble opinion.

Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People’s Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.

Comment: So, any resemblance that Articles 33-50 had to real, lawful, protected, honest-to-goodness rights was purely coincidental. Bummer.

Reality rating: 5/5

Justification of rating: It’s true. Citizens can’t ‘infringe upon the interests of the CCP state’.

Article 52. It is the duty of citizens of the People’s Republic of China to safeguard the unity of the country and the unity of all its nationalities.

Comment: Ah, yes. The call to arms, a duty which begins very early.

Reality rating: U/5

Justification of rating: I’ve decided upon an ‘unclassified’ rating because I’m a bit thrown by ‘unity of all its nationalities’. Just how much of the globe do these boys want to own?

Article 53. Citizens of the People’s Republic of China must abide by the constitution and the law, keep state secrets, protect public property and observe labour discipline and public order and respect social ethics.

Comment: They must practice freedom of speech?

Reality rating: 0/5

Justification of rating: God help any citizen practicing the ‘rights’ outlined in Articles 33-50.

Article 54. It is the duty of citizens of the People’s Republic of China to safeguard the security, honour and interests of the motherland; they must not commit acts detrimental to the security, honour and interests of the motherland.

Comment: How about ‘acts detrimental to the security interests and honour of everyone else’?

Reality rating: 5/5

Justification of rating: Constructive criticism and open discourse fall within the CCP’s definition of ‘detrimental’.

Article 55. It is the sacred obligation of every citizen of the People’s Republic of China to defend the motherland and resist aggression. It is the honourable duty of citizens of the People’s Republic of China to perform military service and join the militia in accordance with the law.

Comment: Well, it’s not a bad thing to repel invaders and I have no doubt that the Chinese people are up for it.

Reality rating: 5.5/5

Justification of rating: They get the extra half point because Chinese citizens abroad (as directed by their educators and local embassy staff) are routinely whipped into a frenzy every time the Chinese government feel a foreign country’s freedom of speech is interpreted as an attack on the Motherland.

Article 56. It is the duty of citizens of the People’s Republic of China to pay taxes in accordance with the law.

Comment: Well, good luck with that one.

Reality rating: 5/5

Justification of rating: I’ve no doubt that it’s their duty. Now if you could only get them to fulfil that obligation…

Conclusion

Who said that the Chinese can’t write good comedy? Oh, wait … you mean they were serious when they wrote that stuff? OK. Then it’s time to remove them from the Human Rights Council until they can begin to live up to the text of the constitution and give Chinese citizens something to believe in. It is the constitution itself that needs to be inviolable in order to make the articles contained therein a document of substance.

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.

A friend alerted me recently to the this site, where well-wishers were invited to voice their support – in no more than 64 words - for one of the world’s most inspirational figures for her 64th birthday. Aung San Suu Kyi, whose 19th year of on-off incarceration was recently extended through a sham trial, had, at time of writing, received in excess of 11 000 messages. These included contributions from Bono, Yoko Ono, George Clooney, many world leaders, MP’s, and fellow Nobel Laureates.

Despite attempts by Burma’s junta to bring down the site, words of solidarity continue to pour in; from Morocco to Sweden, Malaysia to Finland, Indonesia to Mexico, Australia to India, Britain to Bhutan – and on and on - words of support have arrived from all walks of life and nearly every corner of the globe.

Nearly.

I haven’t read all 11 000 messages, but among the numerous pages I flicked through not one response emanated from China. Not a single word of encouragement or vestige of hope for Aung San Suu Kyi and her people; and not one shred of evidence that Burma’s powerful neighbour has the will, the integrity, or the moral responsibility to change or educate its people about the suffering going on in her own backyard.

Why am I not surprised?