The Debate on China

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/opinion/14kristof.html?ref=opinion

Debate Summary

To follow the debate on Chinese censorship will undoubtedly lead you down a very interesting path of two conflicting political views. While we tend to project our westernized views of censorship onto the communist nation, they argue that it is simply the law and the law is to be abided by. However, in the beginning of 2010, the American company Google stated that they will no longer censor search results in China even if that means they must withdraw their search engine from the country. This action by Google could have some serious implications for how American companies adjust their practices by setting a new precedent in the Asian-superpower.

From A Believers Perspective

As Mr. Kristof states, Google is truly “showing spine – a kind that few other companies or governments have shown towards Beijing.” This act is not only groundbreaking but it is a bold move to stand up to a country that no other company has done before. Through Google’s new stance, it will make it harder for a county who is increasingly devoting itself to cyberwarfe to infiltrate such a dominant server in America. Secondly, it is taking a stance against China’s fear of modernization. It comes down to a human rights issue, and that of privacy. Google is standing up for the right of the individual and protecting the privacy of its customers – unlike Yahoo, where people were imprisoned as a result of Chinese e-mail infiltration.

From a Doubters Perspective

It is easy coming from a Western perspective to place doubt or blame on other countries views. We see our ethnocentrism forced onto many views and beliefs that are different than ours – a common theme we have seen time and time again throughout history. Yet, within the scope of censorship, who are we to say what is right and what is wrong for another country. In this situation, an American company is placing their product into Chinese territory and breaking their law. The article goes onto articulate the Chinese Government’s argument but does nothing to emphasize the fact that America is not acting in accordance to the Law of China. Period. Additionally, censorship employs tens of thousands of people who are paid to edit the content – further stimulating the economy. Who are we to say what is right and what is wrong, especially when the censorship debate here on American soil is still continuing.

The Rhetorical Situation

The author of this article is Nicholas D. Kristof, an opinion writer for the New York Times. One thing I appreciated about his stance on the situation is the fact that he has lived in China in the early 1990’s so he does have an understanding of the way censorship works and what they implications are for a citizen of the country. Our communication with China and how we do business is a very need-to-know situation in America, constraints are equally important. While the author does go on to describe the political situation, he does so from a very American perspective of censorship. In this country, we see it more so as a violation of human rights. Yet, in this same way we view things such as ‘hate speech’, ‘slander’ and ‘libel’ much in the same way as the Chinese government might see attacks on their administration. Yet, we view protection on a much more individualized level, so we are quick to criticize that where individual liberties are taken away. Obviously as an American reading the New York Times, I see Chinese policy as a breach of this liberty that we in American are innately guaranteed, much like the author.