Uncategorized | 工商法

Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

The CCP seeks total control of the Internet

Friday, December 18th, 2009

[Cross posted at FOARP]

Such is my conclusion after reading China Digital Times’ translation of notes taken at a SCIO (State Council Information Office) training session attended by Peng Bo , Deputy Chief of the State Council Information Office Internet Affairs Bureau. Let’s do a run down:

1) Government-driven discrimination against foreign companies out of fear of foreign influence -

Commercial websites must understand that it is the government that protects the development of domestic websites. If the Chinese internet didn’t have Xinlang, then Yahoo would have free rein; if there was no Baidu, then Google would have free rein; if there was no QQ, then MSN would have free rein. All of this is because the government is intentionally fostering domestic enterprises.

2) Attempts by the Chinese government to censor and control the effect of Obama’s visit -

Criticize Sina for not thinking politically; when reporting on Obama’s visit to China, they played without authorization a video of Obama speaking in Shanghai.

The most important part of Obama’s visit to China was his speech in Shanghai. The format of this speech was different than the speech format used by past U.S. presidents when visiting China. It was specially designed by the U.S. government to enlarge Obama’s personal influence.

Before Obama visited China, America and China negotiated that websites and television stations would broadcast the event. China accepted their request; however, live television coverage was to be limited to Shanghai area television stations.

These measures were implemented to accord with the central government’s desire that people become enthused about China-U.S. relations rather than be enthused about Obama.

Providing a video of Obama’s speech without authorization was done for Sina’s commercial interest and was not done for the nation’s interest. In order to gain a little, a lot was lost.

3) Government censorship of overseas news reports felt not to be ‘correct’ (i.e., not negative) -

Criticize Netease for going after sensational stories and not doing a good job of directing public opinion. [Neatease's] international news headlines are always things like “New York Mayor Bloomberg Receives Annual Salary of $1”, “Black American Becomes Mayor”, “American Youth Becomes Mayor”. These headlines are sensationalist and cast aspersions [on the Chinese government]. [Netease] has set the wrong direction for public opinion and has not properly fulfilled its role as a guide [of public opinion]

Note the fact that positive foreign news is felt to be critical of the Chinese government. This was reinforced by Li Wufeng, Bureau Chief of the State Council Information Office Internet Affairs Bureau, in his talk at the same training session:

2. Currently, the online republishing of news stories has the following major problems:

2.1 Republishing articles from small papers and publications, even republishing articles from the foreign press.

2.2 The online news phenomenon of “news laundering” [i.e., getting a domestic publication to print news from a banned source and then quoting it] is still serious. Sometimes standard news sources do not even carry the story [that the republishing source claimed the standard news source published].

2.3 Intentionally posting unpermitted content on interactive interfaces (forums, blogs).

2.4 Small newspapers and websites republish each others’ stories, creating media hype. For example, the Deng Yujiao [official killed by waitress defending herself against rape] incident and the Hangzhou street race [well connected young man uses influence to escape serious charges related to hit-and-run killing] case.

Assuming these notes accurately reflect what was said at the training session, this is pure dynamite. It shows that the government’s influencing, censorship and ‘net nannying’ of the Chinese internet is pervasive, and driven by a paranoid view of the media, both foreign and domestic. I ‘m looking forward to reading the translated notes from the other official’s talks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

“The inane meanderings of a petty little fascist . . . .”

Monday, December 7th, 2009

[Cross posted at FOARP]

Such was going to be the conclusion of the piece I had just written on Raymond Zhou’s indescribably vile (not to mention homophobic) passive-aggressive assault on Chinese wild-boy and subversive author/blogger Han Han. Unfortunately for me, but, dear readers, fortunately for you, before I could click on the button marked “publish” I saw this excellent translation of a Hecaitou post by ESWN over at ULN’s place. Money quote:

There is nothing surprising about this nonsense from Raymond Zhou. But we have to be wary of the open hostility displayed in his open letter. The western media were made out to be evil people who want to shove every Chinese people into the fire pit. At the same time, he tied those who dared to fight for the rights of people onto the chariots of the evil western media:

Or you can bribe government censors to shut down your blog for a month. Have them launch a wide-ranging campaign against you. Organize students nationwide to denounce you. The shortest cut to Western credibility, I must add, is to get yourself thrown in jail. Until that happens, you are simply another “willing participant”.

What does that mean? My interpretation is that: Those whose blogs were shut down, those who were criticized by a mass mobilization and those who were sent to prison did so in order to get a page in TIME and win the approval of the western media. It has been a long time since that I have not read any such cold-blooded words. If Raymond Zhou has the guts, he should provide a name list of such people and tell the public: Did these people think that “the quickest way to gain the approval of the western media” was to go to jail? Does Raymond Zhou not want Han Han to any more western media interviews? Does Raymond Zhou not want Han Han to blog about social injustices any more?

Absolutely to the point. Han Han has not yet replied, nor does it seem likely that he will, or even needs to. Hecaitou said it all.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

It was 20 years ago today . . . .

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

[Cross-posted from FOARP]

Well, not quite. We’ll have to wait until next month to celebrate the fall of the Berlin wall. One group of ‘netizens’ (a term I have only ever heard used seriously in China), however, aren’t waiting, and have hijacked this commemorative site to stage their own protest highlighting the continued division of China from the rest of the world by the Great Fire Wall. Well worth having a look if you have time.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Sentencing in Shishou

Sunday, October 18th, 2009

[Cross-posted at FOARP]

Remember Shishou? It was before Urumqi, but after Lhasa. Well, the five people who the local authorities have accused of “organising and inciting” the riots in which more than 60 police officers were injured have been sentenced, and the sentences seem to have been quite light – 5 years imprisonment being the longest. German Sino-blogger JustRecently has a good round-up of the coverage here. Noteworthy points?

1) Not insubstantial compensation was paid to the family of the man who allegedly committed suicide even after family members were arrested for inciting disturbances.

2) The local party chief was forced to resign.

3) Upwards of ten thousand people took to the streets, dozens of policemen were injured, yet only five people were punished.

What does this tell us? Where ethnic minorities upon which the government is not reliant for support protest they are punished severely as the ultimate cause which they seek is greater autonomy, which severely risks the unity of the Chinese state as it stands. However, where Han protest both the methods of policing deployed against them and the punishments used against those who lead the protest will be much less harsh – why? It is because no Chinese government can afford the kind of loss of prestige that would result from the use of harsh methods against the very people that the Chinese government truly relies on for support and which it truly represents. For the events of 20 years ago to be repeated would mean the death-knell of the Chinese state as it stands.

Tags: Riots, Shishou

Posted in China, Law, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

“No Explosives”

Sunday, October 18th, 2009

[Cross-posted from FOARP]

This fascinating, if not exactly information-rich account written by a Canadian journalist covering the trial of six dissidents in Vietnam caught my eye:

“Floral bouquets brightened the dark wood. Steaming glasses of tea were poured.

“Good morning,” an official said as she walked past. Everyone seemed to be polite and smiling, except the man who delivered the briefing about how we should behave at court.

“No explosives,” he reminded us.

No cellphones either.

And don’t try to do anything outside of the court, which seemed to mean don’t talk to anybody.

He spoke with a white bust of Ho Chi Minh behind him next to a hammer and sickle, and a red banner that said, “Forever the glorious Communist Party of Vietnam.”"

Tags: Vietnam

Posted in Law, Uncategorized | Comments Off

The Days of Preparation, Still

Thursday, August 27th, 2009

Methinks Brad DeLong has been saving this one for the right time, perhaps waiting for just the right words (or the right disclosures) to play off of. I think he has deployed effectively, and timely, too. Seeing as how Typepad (and Typepad comments, let us not forget, which is a different beast) is still blocked, I will risk complaint and re-publish the post, in full:

In the Matter of Berkeley Law School Professor John Yoo…

Brad DeLong

Berkeley Law School Dean Chris Edley asks:

Berkeley Law School Dean Chris Edley: [T]he crucial questions… are these: Was there clear professional misconduct–that is, some breach of the professional ethics applicable to a government attorney–material to Professor Yoo’s academic performance now?…

Dean Edley believes that this is a complicated question, to which we must never know the answer: the situation, he believes does “not warrant [Yoo's] dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry.” The harm that would be done to academic freedom, Edley believes, is such that we must never take any steps to find out what the answer to Edley’s question is.

I, by contrast, believe that we have already found out the answer to Edley’s question.

I believe that this is a simple question.

A believe that this question has a very simple answer.

I believe that the answer is “yes.”

In 2000, John Yoo published an article, “The Imperial Presidency Abroad” http://www.cato.org/events/000712con.html, in which he argued that President William Jefferson Clinton had unconstitutionally exceeded the bounds of his Commander-in-Chief powers:

accelerat[ing] disturbing trends in foreign policy that undermine democratic accountability and respect for the rule of law…

by placing:

American troops… under… non-American… commanders, such as British General Michael Jackson…. [This] threatens that basic principle of government accountability. International or foreign officials have no obligation to pursue American policy, nor do they take an oath to uphold the Constitution…

Note that this is a very strange thing to write. In the customary laws of war, the decision whether or not to place soldiers under the tactical, operational, or strategic command of allies is within the appropriate commander’s[1] discretion whenever joint operations are underway. Thus the Duke of Wellington as theater commander placed British troops under Dutch command in the person of the Prince of Orange in the Waterloo Campaign. Thus did George Washington as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army place American troops under French command in the persons of the Marquis de Lafayette and the omte de Rochambeau during the Revolutionary War, thus did John Pershing as American field commander place American troops under French command in the person of Marshall Foch during World War I, and thus did Dwight Eisenhower as AEF commander place American troops under British command in the person of Field Marshall Montgomery during World War II. And nobody said “boo.”

In striking contrast to what he had written thirty months before, on March 14, 2003 John Yoo wrote:

in the customary laws of war, the treatment of unlawful belligerents is left to the sovereign’s discretion…. [T]he sovereign right of the United States on the treatment of enemy combatants is reserved to the President as Commander-in-Chief. In light of the long history of discretion given to each nation to determine its treatment of unlawful combatants, to construe these [congressional] statutes to regulate the conduct of the United States toward such combatants would interfere with a well established prerogative of the sovereign…

So we see, on the one hand, that when the President is William Jefferson Clinton, his Commander-in-Chief powers are so crabbed and restricted that Democratic President Clinton exceeded them by instructing American soldiers to obey the orders of the NATO theater commander.

And we see, on the other hand, when the President is George W. Bush, his Commander-in-Chief powers are so extensive and unconstrained that Congress’s explicit authority to “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces” can place no restrictions at all on what lawful orders Republican President George W. Bush can give to mistreat, abuse, and torture persons held by the U.S. armed forces.

These two Commander-in-Chief powers are very different indeed.

To advance as your basic principle of Constitional construction “don’t worry: it’s OK if you are a Republican” is a breach of professional ethics serious enough to more than pass the bar set by Dean Edley–unless, of course, all legal reasoning is just a crock of manure to mask partisan maneuvering.

Now it is plain that John Yoo does not believe both of his 2000 and 2003 statements of the legal extent of the Commander-in-Chief power. Indeed, he believes neither: if he believed the 2000 statement, he would never in his life have written what he wrote in 2003; if he believed the 2003 statement, he would never in his life have put forward what he wrote in 2000.

This has a bearing on the duty of the university to ensure and promote academic freedom. As medieval history professor Ernst Kantorowicz said, upon his resignation from the university rather than bow to the Regents’ demand that he swear that he would not advocate communism:

[I] wish to emphasize the true and fundamental issue at stake: professional and human dignity. There are three professions which are entitled to wear a gown: the judge, the priest, the scholar. This garment stands for its bearer’s maturity of mind, his independence of judgment, and his direct responsibility to his conscience and to his God. It signifies the inner sovereignty of those three interrelated professions: they should be the very last to allow themselves to act under duress and yield to pressure. It is a shameful and undignified action, it is an affront and a violation of both human sovereignty and professional dignity that the Regents of this University have dared to bully the bearer of this gown into a situation in which–under the pressure of a bewildering economic coercion-‑he is compelled to give up either his tenure or, together with his freedom of judgment, his human dignity and his responsible sovereignty as a scholar.

Academic freedom–like all freedoms–is thus not free: liberty is always paired with responsibility. A professor is freed from coercion by others to shape or constrain or limit what he or she decides to say. In return, a professor takes on a twofold “responsibility to his conscience and to his god”: an obligation (a) to think as hard as he or she can, and (b) to then tell the world what he or she thinks. A university in which professors are freed from external constraint and pressure and in turn obey the internal constraint that is their reponsibility to think hard and tell what they believe to be the truth is one in which there is academic freedom.

What does a university’s obligation to nurture and guard academic freedom entail? Clearly it means that a university has to protect its members by coercion from outsiders. And clearly it means that a university has to protect its members from coercion by insiders–those other professors who do not like where professors’ responsibilities to their consciences and gods lead them. But what are a university’s obligations with respect to a professor who wants the freedom from coercion but does not accept the responsibility to think hard and to say what those thoughts are? What if a professor uses freedom from coercion and constraint not to tell the world what he thinks, but rather to say at one moment that there is one set of constitutional rules for Democratic Presidents and at another moment that there is a very different set of constitutional rules for Republican Presidents?

Is academic freedom vindicated by claiming that the university has no responsibility to censure, no responsibility to correct, no responsibility to discipline, no responsibility to dismiss someone who so violates his direct responsibility to his conscience and to his god?
I leave this issue as an exercise for the dean.
_____
[1] Note the difference between “commander” on the one hand and “sovereign” on the other. The American President’s powers are of the “Chief Executive” class, inherited from the powers of the British King as chief executive of the United Kingdom as its constitution stood in 1776. The British King in 1775 was not the “sovereign” but rather the commander of the army: ever since 1689, sovereignty in the United Kingdom was held by the King-in-Parliament, a very different entity than the King.