Han Dongping

From democracy and human rights to internet freedom

By Han Dongping (chinadaily.com.cn)
Updated: 2010-01-26 09:37

Secretary Hilary Clinton spoke at the Newseum on Internet Freedom on January 21, 2010. From now on, internet freedom will be a new pillar for US foreign policy. I am very impressed by Secretary of State’s eloquent speech, which gives this new American foreign policy all the moral high ground to start with. Who does not want freedom or internet freedom in this world, and who dare to oppose freedom or internet freedom in this world?

For decades now, the American government’s foreign policy has been to democratize the third world countries. According to a book entitled Inevitable Revolution and published in the US, American government and CIA involved in coups that led to the overthrow of eleven democratically elected governments in Central American in the name of fighting communism and upholding democracy and freedom. In order to promote freedom, CIA instigated a coup to overthrow the democratically elected Allende Government in Chile in the 1970s, the first democratically elected socialist leader in America. In the name of democracy, US backed Ferdinand Marcos in Philippines whose regime was killing hundreds of dissidents according to some political scientists in Philippines. With American backing, Indonesian President Soharto carried out a coup in the mid 1960s that killed millions of people.

In fact, the sour relationship between Iran and United States today originated from a coup backed by both CIA and British Intelligence Service which led to the overthrow of the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddeq government in 1953, which paved the way for the 1979 Islamic Revolution and led to the hatred and resentments between the two countries up till today.

In the name of human rights and democracy, American Government invaded Iraq, over the objection of UN Security Council, and overthrew the legitimate government of Iraq. Consequently, more than one hundred thousand Iraq people paid the ultimate prices of their lives, and Iraqi people still live amid violence and fear as part of their daily life today.

I hope that American Government and American People do not take this new foreign policy of internet freedom as seriously as they do with their foreign policy on democracy and human rights. Otherwise I fear for the common future of our human race. As a world and as human race, we have too many conflicts in this world already. We do not need more conflicts and more reasons to fight. Let us have our own freedom, and let other people have their own. Let us recognize the fact the different cultures in this world have evolved and tempered in different natural environments for thousands of years. They each have reasons to be the way they are. It will not be easy for anybody to change them easily. Let us also recognize the fact that US efforts to democratize the third world countries have not made the world an any better place after all.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said that “ultimately, this issue isn’t just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. It’s about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors.”

For the sake of argument, I want to dissent. Why does the world just need to have one internet? Why the world can not have more than one internet? Why other countries can not have the freedom to have their own internet, the internet that suit their needs and purpose? What is the harm to have more than one internet? For the sake of peaceful coexistence, we can have our way of doing things and allow the various other people the freedom to have their way of life. Is it that will be a better world than one country and one government tell everybody else what to do? Will American people ever accept any foreign governments to tell their government what to do?

Let us recognize the fact that every country in this world has their own way of doing things for reasons beyond our comprehension. I have an old friend in America. During the Vietnam War, he was a director of one of three field hospitals there. During the war times, he wrote to his family explaining that American government’s figure of casualties was falsified because the number of casualties in his hospital alone was bigger than the figure released by the government. Somehow, his letter was classified by the government. I think that American government had its reasons to censor my friend's letter during the war time, and my friend and I both understood that. Everybody knows that the US Government classified many pictures and information regarding the cases of abusing prisoners in Iraq. I supported that kind of classification, for that kind of information can only incite hatred against the United States in the world and led to more violence in the end.

This summer I was in Xinjiang, China with a group of American students. We witnessed the ethnic riots there. The people who were killed were mostly Han Chinese in the riots. The Chinese media first delayed the report of the incident, and then underreported the figure of casualties. My American students did not understand, and criticized the Chinese Government for withholding information very angrily. The next day, the angry Han Chinese began to attack Ughers in a few places. At that time, I told my American students that I hoped they understood why the Chinese government did not report the incident right away, and why they underreport the number of casualties in the first place. They did that in order to avoid more violence. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton rightly pointed out that there are people in this world use internet to incite violence and hatred. In a critical time, when rumors were everywhere, improve my terms; I believe that it was the right thing to censor the internet in order to control the situation. Otherwise the hotheaded people could use various rumors to instigate more violence. We can always find out the truth a little bit later when things calm down. I was pretty impressed by the Chinese Government’s handling of the riots in Xinjiang even though I was not able to use the internet for some times. I did not know how many more people would have been killed unnecessarily and meaninglessly if the whole situation was left to the internet freedom.

China is composed of 56 nationalities. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, Chinese people of different nationalities have been able to live mostly in harmony except a couple of riots in Xinjiang by Ughurs and a couple of riots by Tibetan Monks in Tibets, both groups with extensive foreign connections and financial support, which are public information. The Chinese government treated all the fifty five minorities the same way. But why only Ughurs in Xinjiang and outside Tibetan Monks in Tibet rioted? There are 13 minority nationalities in Xinjiang alone. Why the twelve others who live on the same land and received the same kind of benefits did not riot?

For countries like China, internet freedom is not simply internet freedom. It is ultimately the survival of the nation as a whole at the stake. There are people in this world who wish that China should be fragmented into several countries. A few years ago, there was an academic dispute involving a secret agency of certain government sponsoring a research project that China would be split into seven different parts. Therefore, Chinese government and Chinese people should take this so called internet freedom very serious. What if someone use the internet freedom to instigate separatist activities in China? China, like many other countries in the world, is faced the danger of terrorists of all kinds. What should be the right kind of response to people who are taking advantage of internet freedom to instigate violence? China should, improve my terms, educate the American counterparts about the seriousness of this matter. If American government and American people want to promote peace and equality in this world, as Secretary of State claimed, they will be reasonable.