Academics and activists decry publisher’s decision to comply with a Chinese request to block more than 300 articles from leading China studies journal
The imperial government strikes again, and unfortunately, there’s not a lot the CUP can do about it if it wants China Quarterly to remain partly accessible in China, which is a step ahead of a complete block on the journal.
The comments in the Guardian article are from people who, it seems, should know the score. What did they expect might happen in a country with a frog-in-a-well mentality where the sky keeps getting further away as the walls rise higher and higher? What did they expect from an increasingly censorious regime?
One of the more sensible comments in the whole article is “[Andrew] Nathan said China’s list of censorship demands to the CUP appeared to have been generated “by a naive machine search of article and review titles” which had targeted key words and names deemed sensitive. He called the move “a useless overreach” by Beijing.” This tallies with my own view that Chinese censorship is cloddish, often knocking out harmless websites because on the basis of one site, the entire host is treated as if it’s tainted.
I also agree with Nathan’s subsequent comment, “What can it accomplish? I’m sorry to say that information control often works. But if you have so much money, staff, and time, that you can burrow down to the level of censoring academic publications in a foreign language that could only be used by your own academic community, then I think your censorship organs are over funded and you would do well to cut their budgets. As the saying goes, this is lifting up a stone only to drop it on one’s own foot.” Let’s not forget that the Chinese government spends more money on internal security than it does on the armed forces. Let’s also not forget the armed forces are there to defend the government first and foremost.
There’s little the CUP can do about this because even if this is a consequence of stupid AI identifying material from a niche, subscription-only (?) market, the government has a low level of tolerance for honest and open discussions and analyses of Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen Square, the Cultural Revolution, and all those other noble episodes in recent Chinese history. With behaviour like this, China will merely continue to be top in all the categories no country should be proud to be top in.
23.08.17. The CUP reversed their decision after a lot of self-righteous whining mostly from Americans, who might whine a little less if they had to endure the levels of censoriousness and thought manipulation which afflict China. On the other side of the coin is the implication that the CUP was really only thinking about its bank balance.
The truth is that no foreign company can expect to operate outside of the law in China, but the sadder truth is that the law here is so vague that the articles probably violate it in some way, or can be claimed to violate it without there being much chance of arguing the matter to the contrary, in a system where there’s no effective constraint on arbitrariness.