Mr Benjamin Bassin

Internet and the Non-Democratic State; the Case of China

The views expressed below are those of the speaker, not necessarily those of the Government of Finland

Internet presents obvious economic and commercial opportunities

• reduction of transaction costs
• foreign trade facilitation
• e-commerce possibilities

From the point of view of the non-democratic (totalitarian, authoritarian, traditional etc) state, access to information can also help to empower populations, in particular internal opposition to the regime.

Regimes of the Marxist-Leninist pattern, like China, look at information as a monopoly of the state. To relinquish control over a major source of information like the Internet is a difficult decision, even if the Chinese Government has, in the past three decades taken several important steps towards liberalising information flows.

In the liberal Western countries, the debate about Internet in non-democratic settings is largely between those who firmly believe in the victory of freedom - as represented in this case by the Internet - over the evil designs of dictators and those who admit the possibility that non-democratic regimes not only can control the Internet but that the Internet can be turned into their instrument. The present and future developments in China are likely to prove or disprove the correctness of these points of view.

It is useful at this juncture to recall that the very nature of Internet makes it suitable for a political tool.

• blocking access to foreign web sites restricts access to global markets and capital flows
• blocking also slows down the entire network
• refusing the possibility of encryption, would significantly limit the usefulness of the Internet for e-commerce, banking transactions etc.

Speed, breath and privacy make the Internet an excellent political tool.

(In the following analysis of Internet policies of some East Asian countries I have relied on a study by Nina Hachigian of the RAND Co. "The Internet and Power in One-Party East Asian States", The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2002)

Totalitarian states like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) solve the problem simply by forbidding the Internet. Given the economic status of the country, this appears to have little impact either way. Still, the Government of DPRK is well aware of what it is missing and clearly preparing for the time it can make full use of Internet and IT. A national Intranet with at least 1300 terminals appears to exist. DPRK has its own website on the Internet.

The position taken by the Government of Myanmar (Burma) is by and large the same as that of the DPRK Government. Opposition sources complain the the ruling junta is using Internet to misinform, to divide and to intimidate the opposition.

The advantage of the DPRK/Myanmar type of response lies in the simplicity of its application: as Internet is simply forbidden, few questions of interpretation are likely to arise.

Vietnam has reacted to the Internet by placing significant restrictions on Internet access and on online political content and usage but not forbidding its use.

Singapore has chosen to seek the economic and commercial benefits of Internet, worrying less about its political consequences. Moderate restrictions are imposed on political content and use.

Malaysia actively promotes the use of Internet and places virtually no restrictions on online political content.

Where does China place itself on this scale ? According to official figures, China now had 79.5 million users in 2003, second largest in the world after the U.S. (165.75 million) and well ahead of Japan's 56 million. This reflects the most important feature of Chinese Internet policy: China actively promotes the Internet at all levels. Together with the restrictive attitude China has vis-a-vis freedom of expression, this has led to a somewhat split picture:

• on one hand China systematically represses content and free expression, using the instruments of law and technology to the fullest; China has built "the Great Firewall of China" which automatically blocks sites deemed unacceptable to the authorities
• on the other hand China has embarked on the China Wide Web project which aims at creating in the shortest possible time as much nation-based, Chinese language content as possible

China not only blocks undesirable information but it has given the state the power to investigate, prosecute and sanction those who seek or receive such information.

Two scholars of Harvard University, Professors Zittrain and Edelman conducted between May and November 2002 an analysis of internet filtering in China. Some conclusions:

• China blocked a large amount of material cutting across substantive categories but with emphasis on regional political issues (Taiwan, Tibet etc), on religion, on tourism to other countries, on health
• There was extensive mistaken blocking, seemingly accidental, of innocuous content, reflecting lack of precision in blocking methods.
• Filtering is becoming more subtle over time

Other sources indicate that the filtering operation alone employs currently some 30.000 persons

In February 2004 The Chinese Government decided to consider the operations and location of all the 200.000 internet cafés in the country which serve approximately 80 million users. Already in 2003 the cafés were expected to install software to block forbidden content.

In July 2004 it was announced that text messaging was was subject to "Self-Discipiline Standards on Content in Mobile Short Messaging Service", aiming at filtering out pornographic, undesirable or illegal information.

Since July 2004 more than 300 persons have been arrested and hundreds of websites closed. Those arrested will be tried under legislation enacted in September 2004; maximum penalty will be life in prison.

A striking example on how the Internet can empower individuals in China and how it can force authorities into action is the case of Muzimei, a South Chinese lady in her mid-twenties who chronicled her sex life at a web blog hosting system which was closed down after tens of thousands of people logged on to it. Not since the legendary peasant-soldier Lei Feng has an individual, non-member of the top political leadership had this kind of publicity in China.

Another telling example of the empowerment of the people by the Internet is the SARS-epidemic in 2003 and the failure of the attempts to suppress information related to it (admittedly, text messaging played the crucial role here).

An interesting and potentially troubling precedent has been created by Google News China: Google has recently agreed not to include sources that are inaccessible from the PRC. Its defence is that it provides links, not stories. Including links leading to empty pages would be pointless. The ethics of the decision as well as the impact of market forces on Google's operation in China need to be given particular attention.

There are clear indications that China is moving slowly but steadily towards a more pluralistic society. This in spite of all the retrograde steps we have wittnessed in the recent past.

The logic of the market weighs heavily against the logic of blocking undesirable information on the Internet.

As experience concerning the Internet accumulates, China might be more attracted by the Malaysian or Singaporean example than that of, say, Vietnam.