• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama in China

Tricky said:
I understand that his speech decrying censorship has been almost completely censored. You can't find a copy of it anywhere in China.
Click to expand...
Entirely untrue. Its not available anywhere on official Chinese websites...but is available everywhere for download on 'unofficial' channels.

Furthermore, it can be viewed in its entirety on the Whitehouse website, which has not been blocked by the Chinese gov't (I watched it there with a Chinese friend last night). And Chinese still have access to foreign newspapers that have the text of the speech, and in some cases video.

That's the beauty of the internet, and the major changes it has wrought in China. Despite gov't efforts to control it (the Great Firewall, gov't controlled media, etc.), the info still gets out far faster and through far more channels than the gov't can ever control.

ETA: For those Chinese who don't have internet access, it would largely be true that they would likely be unable to find any copy of that speech, written or video. But considering that China now has more internet users than any other country in the world, that's still an awful lot of people with access.
 
Last edited:
And what do the Chinese people think of the government trying to censor speeches like that?
 
gtc said:
And what do the Chinese people think of the government trying to censor speeches like that?
Click to expand...
Honestly?

An annoyance.

Since China's never had any real 'free press', and most of 5000 years of history and culture is based on the idea that the rulers determine truth, there's not that big a sense that they've 'lost' something.

And compared to all the things they've gained under this government (and their accomplishments are far from insignificant), its something they're willing to put up with.

Overall, I'd say it is regarded as an annoyance...something they'd prefer were otherwise, but that isn't a huge issue, particularly since they can find most of the information they want by going online, anyway. If you asked them if they'd like it to change, they'd most certainly say yes; but it would be unlikely to be one of their top priorities.

Its kinda' like if you're a kid at summer camp, and are told that you're only allowed to buy one chocolate bar a day from the shop. But you know a kid who has a big stash of chocolate bars, and you can buy them from him at a slightly higher cost. Sure, you're not gonna' be a big fan of the situation; sure, you'd prefer it were different; but as long as you can still get your chocolate, and it doesn't cause you too much inconvenience, its not gonna' be a big issue to you.
 
Last edited:
Wolfman said:
And compared to all the things they've gained under this government (and their accomplishments are far from insignificant), its something they're willing to put up with.
Click to expand...
This seems to be a comment that the considerable economic gains delivered to the [coastal, urban] population are sufficient to compensate for under-delivery of political gains. That's believed to be the "business model" of the CPC, which explains the policies aimed at keeping economic output growing fast in the non-rural economy so that it can absorb the ongoing rate of ex-rural migration (employ them). So far it kinda works. Much better than anything else the country did since 1434. Huge long march ahead though. (PS--your analysis is excellent, ta)
 
Francesca R said:
This seems to be a comment that the considerable economic gains delivered to the [coastal, urban] population are sufficient to compensate for under-delivery of political gains. That's believed to be the "business model" of the CPC, which explains the policies aimed at keeping economic output growing fast in the non-rural economy so that it can absorb the ongoing rate of ex-rural migration (employ them). So far it kinda works. Much better than anything else the country did since 1434. Huge long march ahead though. (PS--your analysis is excellent, ta)
Click to expand...
Oh, this is very definitely a deliberate policy on the part of the gov't. And overall, it works. In truth, I think that in any population, the majority of people, if given a choice over comfort and freedom, would end up sacrificing their freedoms before sacrificing their comforts. Example: the American people were convinced to sacrifice some of their freedoms in return for the comfort of "security" after 9/11. There will always be a more idealistic minority who will value their freedoms first...but so long as a gov't can keep the majority happy, those people will be no more than a nuisance.
 
(Copied from EB&F):

Some data on China's income per person, taken from Maddison (second chart also appears in chapter 8 of Sachs 2005)

127464b0527ecafa8a.jpg



127464b0527eccdad1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Praktik said:
Does lecturing on human rights actually give real returns in terms of Chinese changes in behaviour? Or is it primarily for domestic consumption and ironically result in a hardening of the Chinese position in reaction?
Click to expand...

If what you say is true, there goes Obama's foreign policy down the drain.

I thought the whole point of his foreign policy-- engagement, talking, convincing, arguing, never threatening or demanding; a policy of changing hostile nations' behavior by words, not by the sword. If that is impossible -- and it might well be, alas -- Obama might as well fire the state department's staff and save the bother and expenses, since using talk to effect other countries' policies is useless and force and threats are (Obama claims) evil.

More precisely, Obama's foreign policy in this case would be not just useless but positively harmful: if you are a democratic ally, you will be threatened and bullied with words, since there is a chance a democracy might be effected by such tactics. But if you are a dictatorial enemy, however, your sins will be ignored and you will be flattered, under the "words won't change anything with dictatorships anyway" theory.

Obama had already thrown to the dogs Chinese human rights activists and the Iranian ones, too.
 
No you misunderstand. Talking is not lecturing.

Lecturing China on human rights is a one-way "talking at" rather than a collaborative discussion.

And its usual returns are confined to domestic politics and typically short-lived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom