*Why don't the Chinese just BUY Google? They could afford it.
http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-01/500324.html
The real stake in "free flow of information"
Source: Global Times [04:55 January 22 2010]
With her seemingly impassioned speech Thursday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be said to have raised the stakes in Washington's clash with Beijing over Internet freedom.
"We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas." Clinton's words may sound perfectly right to some in the West, but would be regarded as a new threat by people in other parts of the world.
The US campaign for uncensored and free flow of information on an unrestricted Internet is a disguised attempt to impose its values on other cultures in the name of democracy.
The hard fact that Clinton has failed to highlight in her speech is that bulk of the information flowing from the US and other Western countries is loaded with aggressive rhetoric against those countries that do not follow their lead.
In contrast, in the global information order, countries that are disadvantaged could not produce the massive flow of information required, and could never rival the Western countries in terms of information control and dissemination. (((Hey Chinese guy. Rupert Murdoch is Australian. You think we like that any better than you do?)))
Keeping that in mind, it must be realized that when it comes to information content, quantity, direction and flow, there is absolutely no equality and fairness.
The online freedom of unrestricted access is, thus, only one-way traffic, contrary to the spirit of democracy and calculated to strengthen a monopoly.
Countries disadvantaged by the unequal and undemocratic information flow have to protect their national interest, and take steps toward this. This is essential for their political stability as well as normal conduct of economic and social life.
These facts about the difficulties of developing nations, though understood by politicians like Clinton, are not communicated to the people of Western countries. Instead, those politicians publicize and pursue their claims purely from a Western standpoint.
This practice is morally unworthy and has been resisted by intellectuals in developing countries.
Take Google's threat to pull out of China for example. It has stirred widespread debate among the public in China. The recent poll conducted by huanqiu.com shows a growing number of people voicing opposition to an unregulated or uncensored Google in China. As many as 81 percent of those polled are opposed to Chinese government accepting Google's demands.
It is not because the people of China do not want free flow of information or unlimited access to Internet, as in the West. It is just because they recognize the situation that their country is forced to face.
Unlike advanced Western countries, Chinese society is still vulnerable to the effect of multifarious information flowing in, especially when it is for creating disorder.
Western countries have long indoctrinated non-Western nations on the issue of freedom of speech. It is an aggressive political and diplomatic strategy, rather than a desire for moral values, that has led them to do so.
The free flow of information is an universal value treasured in all nations, including China, but the US government's ideological imposition is unacceptable and, for that reason, will not be allowed to succeed.
China's real stake in the "free flow of information" is evident in its refusal to be victimized by information imperialism.
