China-related thoughts

It would seem that history never really goes away. Just ask the Chinese censors on the Great Firewall (GFW) who spent a good part of June 4, 2012 trying to erase the anomaly from the Chinese stock exchange that dropped 64.89 points on that particular day. For those who are unaware, June 4, 1989 was the date of the violent crackdown by the Chinese government on (largely peaceful) protesters in Tiananmen Square. And it's often referred to as 6 4 in Chinese so the numbers hold some significance. So, when the Shanghai stock exchange dropped 64.89 points exactly 23 years after 6/4/89, it certainly prompted some effort on the part of the GFW to ensure that people would not be disharmonized (and yes, I use that term on purpose) by such a coincidence. Indeed, in a country where so much effort is put into erasing this event from history, this is not surprising. However, what may be somewhat surprising is how many people in China unofficially realize this and will not let it go no matter how much pressure is applied to enforce the erasure - as evidenced by the commentary on Weibo (the Chinese Twitter, if you will). Equally surprising, perhaps, is that the Chinese government continues to wear blinders on this subject and refuses to realize that the only way that it will ever truly go away is to open the history books and try to deal with it as honestly as possible. Of course, the fact that the government has not dealt openly with any other incident in its short history (including the Long March, the Shanghai massacre of communist partisans in 1927, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution or any other incidents regarding the corruption of its members - mot notably Mao himself) does not make this an isolated incident.

As an aside, this is not to suggest that other governments deal honestly with their own history, including various democracies. They are often similarly dishonest. The difference, if not always true, is that most of them (particularly in democracies) can and are held to account for their mistakes and misdeeds and there can be open discussion among those citizens (for the most part). It is quite clear that this is not the case in China.

And, while we're on the topic of the Chinese government looking, um, well, foolish, how about the fact that it is again calling for the US government (namely, the US embassy in Beijing) to stop producing data on the environmental pollution issues that plague China (and Beijing specifically). After all, it's making China look bad. Heaven forbid that honestly reporting on environmental pollution that is legitimately dangerous to the citizens should make someone look bad and want to encourage them to remedy the situation! No, the entire point is to maintain the power structure which is obviously hard to do when those idiot Americans are telling people what they already know because they see it everyday - the pollution where they live is dangerous to them. While the Chinese government makes some valid points about a single site making a statement about the overall pollution level in the area, this just obscures the fact that the government is simply wanting to hide facts from its citizens for fear it may be held to account - as, quite frankly, it should. Instead of trying to find reasonable solutions, the government spends more time and effort seeking to assign and avoid blame for issues. Unfortunately, this will probably only make it more likely that it will inevitably fail to last in the same fashion that it continues to fail those it alleges to represent.

Some more random thoughts...

China's firewall goes international. Ignoring the technical side for a moment, the possibility that people outside of China are having their requests routed through China - and its firewall - poses a conundrum. One of the major selling points is the absolute freedom of information available on the internet. And while there is a growing possibility of mini-nets that will be regional, or even country-specific, and thus liable to suffer from whatever forms of control asserted by the local authorities, the possibility that an error such as that described in the linked article could occur can have consequences far beyond the given area. Indeed, it is the opposite of the problem that many authoritarian countries face now whereby they worry about information getting to their citizens. But the ability to export their controls external to their regional area is far more frightening for everyone. It simply goes to show that there is balance everywhere. It is easy to see the "good" side of the internet and its information flow and ignore the "bad" side where impediments to that same free flow can be far too easily exported. Hopefully a good answer will be found in the near future - though the fact that this has occurred previously does not bode well.

The nanny state is at it again. In a plan that seems more reminiscent of something from the designers of The Patriot Act (or maybe the creators of The Matrix or even V for Vendetta), it would appear that the UK government is asking internet cafes to voluntarily monitor the usage of its customers. The stated purpose, of course, is to help prevent terrorism. The problem is that this becomes a rather slippery slope. Once we know that you're helping us to check up on your fellow citizens, then let's see what else we can do to continue to establish the sense of paranoia and fear that allows us to exert other forms of control over a citizenry too cowed to tell us no. Is it scare-mongering to warn us to be on the lookout for those who would potentially harm us? Is it just responsible government? Is it another step on the way to a more dangerous form of authoritarian government with fewer controls on its exercise of power? To know the answer would be to know the intent of those who wield this power. And the reality is that it is impossible to know the intent of anyone regardless of their actions. If history has not yet demonstrated the ability for government to relinquish its hold on power, then it would seem that we are fated to learn the lesson - again.

And, just so no one thinks it's just a Western thing, moderates in Islam continue to suffer losses. And for some perspective, bear in mind that Qatar also hosts CENTCOM Forward HQ (US military central command). It also is the home of Al-Jazeera, the most widely viewed news source in the Middle East and the source, according to some, of the inflammatory rhetoric used against the West (and has regularly been the primary source for Al-Qaeda communications). But now, to help reshape it as a more religiously conservative site, the government has forced out the moderate leadership (moderate, of course, being a relative term), including Al-Qaradawi, of the company that funds the site. What is the old mantra? Money talks, BS walks? Yes, that is it. And here it is clear that if the moderate message put through by the site could not be erased by an equally rational message from those who disagreed with it, it is easier to simply wipe the site out (or at least dilute it) by taking away its funding. Then the government can step in and force its own message onto the site. Come to think of it, I'll bet Hugo Chavez could learn a lesson from Qatar...