Antony Loewenstein

My following article appears in the US magazine The Nation on the Global Voices Citizen Media Summit and the issue of web repression:

During the Global Voices Citizen Media Summit 2008–sponsored by Harvard University and Google in Budapest, Hungary, in late June, and attended by over 200 bloggers, human rights activists, writers, journalists, hackers and IT experts from every corner of the globe–one participant joked that it was worthwhile buying domain names for dissidents likely to be imprisoned. “Just get them with ‘Free (insert name here).com,’ ” he said.

A recent University of Washington report found that 64 people have been arrested for blogging their political views since 2003. Three times as many people were arrested for blogging about political issues in 2007 than in 2006. More than half of the arrests since 2003 were made in Iran, China and Egypt. Internet censorship has become a cause with global relevance.

I was invited to present a paper at the two-day event that covered the research for my forthcoming book, The Blogging Revolution, on the Internet in repressive regimes, plans by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to combat Internet child pornography, and my work with Amnesty International Australia on its campaign against Chinese web filtering, Uncensor.

The goal of Global Voices, started in late 2004, is to provide insights into non-Western nations to Western audiences through country-specific blogs. The last years have seen its agenda expand to include a translation service for multiple languages, Global Voices Lingua , support for minorities in developing nations (the Rising Voices project) and Voices without Votes, the chance for global citizens to comment on the 2008 US presidential election campaign in every country except America.

The Budapest summit featured bloggers and activists from places as diverse as Madagascar, India, Belarus, Kenya, Pakistan, Singapore, Bangladesh, Armenia, Egypt, Iran and China. It was constantly stressed that although the Internet can’t bring democratic reform on its own– only citizens of a country have the right to determine a political system, not outside forces–it is allowing on-the-ground organizations to challenge corruption, fraudulent elections and police-led torture. Populations are being empowered.

Although everybody I met came from varied backgrounds, from the elites to indigenous communities using new technology to find a voice in a country like Bolivia, the sense of community was palpable. What can an Australian journalist like myself really understand about democratic struggles in Iran and Bangladesh? By sharing stories, it soon became clear that many speakers related to others on the opposite side of the globe. Tools such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, e-mail, FeedBurner and text messaging were common denominators used by a minority online community to challenge state-run, media lies.

Nobody talked about revolution or massive social change, but rather the ability to become engaged in a process usually reserved for an unelected class. In Morocco, for example, bloggers filmed corrupt policemen taking bribes and posted them on YouTube. “Targuist Sniper” inspired many others to act similarly, and the short videos have been watched millions of times. One female Egyptian blogger posted photos of police torture by tagging her entries with the names of the accused officials. Some of this evidence was used in a court of law. Two close US allies were forced to publicly respond to internal pressure.

Numerous sessions revealed insights into societies all too easily categorized as oppressive. Iranian exile Hamid Tehrani revealed that the regime, now with one of the most effective web-filtering systems outside of China, bans many anti-George W. Bush sites such as Juan Cole’s Informed Comment and The Huffington Post but allows a neocon and prowar site such as Pajamas Media to remain uncensored. It was a typically illogical move.

Only last week Iranian members of parliament announced a draft bill that aims to “toughen punishment for disturbing mental security in society.” The text of the bill would add “establishing websites and weblogs promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy” to the list of crimes punishable by execution.

The perception of the Internet in various countries remains troubling. Singaporean blogger Au Wai Pang said that the tool is “free” in his country, “but people behave like it is not.” Self-censorship is a key barrier to open debate. Au reminded the Budapest audience that technology isn’t always the answer to censorship issues. “How do you change people’s minds,” he asked, “[for] many who don’t believe in a society with free speech?” Nothing beats face-to-face interaction, but the web has become a space where citizens can voice their opinions and have them respected often for the first time.

A number of prominent Kenyan bloggers, including Ory Okolloh and Daudi Were, discussed the role of new technology in the aftermath of the stolen election in late 2007. With only 7-10 percent web penetration in the country, bloggers on election day woke up early to film people waiting patiently in line to vote. Some were even embedded with foreign observers and could immediately report, via SMS and Twitter, irregularities in the counting process. International support in the Diaspora was crucial to highlight this relatively stable nation descend into ethnic chaos.

Blogger Luis Carlos Diaz, from Venezuela, debunked many of the Western myths about President Hugo Chávez. “The problem is we have too much petroleum,” Diaz lamented. Although critical of many of his policies, Diaz said that Chávez was a democratically elected leader who wasn’t quashing freedom of speech. “Voting is a sport in Venezuela,” he said. To remain awake during the weekly eight-hour diatribes by Chávez on state television, bloggers were providing an alternative perspective on issues that matter to average citizens, such as poverty, housing and education. Diaz said he’d recently spoken to workers whose job is to transcribe Chávez’s speeches. They usually last around 3,000 pages every week.

Unsurprisingly, China featured prominently in the sessions. Rebecca MacKinnon, former CNN journalist and now academic in Hong Kong, stressed that debate had to progress past who is more “brainwashed,” Western or Chinese audiences. One of the key translators of Chinese blog posts for Global Voices, John Kennedy, challenged his audience by asking whether the growing Western anger against the Chinese people was justified. Was nationalism as great an influence as claimed? Was self-determination for Tibet so unacceptable in the motherland? Are Chinese netizens any more thin-skinned than Westerners when attacked online for their opinions?

Despite these valid questions, one of China’s leading dissidents, Isaac Mao, wished that the Chinese mob mentality online on issues of national importance wasn’t so strong. He stressed that although the concept of freedom of speech is paramount in the West, many other societies place greater emphasis on the rule of law and fighting corruption.

Mao, who launched Digital Nomads to host hundreds of independent blogs away from prying authoritarian rule, feared citizens in prosperous, Western citizens rarely understood the “crimes of omission” in their own societies. “They don’t get why the non-Western world wants to talk about issues that the Western largely ignores,” Mao said, “such as poverty and environmental degradation.” A major theme of the event was highlighted. Too few bloggers in the West were bridging the information gap between different societies and preferred to preach rather than listen.

The role of blogs in China is more than simply reacting to perceived Western slights. Instead, many netizens may not be calling for the dissolution of the Communist Party or planning a revolution, but they’re been given far more freedoms today than five years ago. Mirroring what I found during my research in China last year, very few Chinese bloggers appear upset with the excessive filtering (though some are unaware what they’re missing out on.) This doesn’t mean, however, that the apparent blocking of parts of Facebook isn’t annoying for many users or the creeping Olympic crackdown.

It was encouraging to hear from IT insiders that many employees of companies such as Google and Yahoo feel distinctly uncomfortable with the role their companies play in a country such as China and regularly leak material about their actions anonymously and develop tools to allow an e-mail program such as Gmail to be used securely, away from the prying eyes of censorious regimes.

The Budapest conference showed yet again that the mainstream media remains woefully under-prepared and unwilling to cover vast swathes of the world. Blogging and citizen journalism therefore provides an essential alternative to the daily obsession in much of our media with re-printing government and corporate spin as news.

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

We don’t need American, mainstream journalists telling us that something is wrong in China, writes Antony Loewenstein

Chinese dissidents will continue to push for democratic change. This is certain in an Olympic year, but these voices are undoubtedly stronger in the West than in their own country. Reformers have regularly experienced similar battles throughout history, from Eastern Europe during the Cold War to anti-Castro activists in Cuba.

I remember speaking to some of these dissidents in Cuba last year and being told that they wished to be better recognised in, say, Havana, as productive members of society rather than threats to national security.

Chinese bloggers are achieving small victories against authoritarian rule, but the struggle for truly alternative voices to be heard in the West is a constant challenge. For example, how willing are Western audiences to hear stories about Chinese netizens not being oppressed?

Propaganda against Tibet and the Dalai Lama continues with an exhibition at Beijing’s Cultural Palace of Nationalities and authorities are warning the Tibetan leader not to disrupt the Games.

Citizen media is gearing up for the August 8 start-date, despite the onerous restrictions. The International Federation of Journalists launched in late June a helpline and website to support thousands of foreign journalists in Beijing.

To clarify the reality of China’s current state for Western audiences, however, sometimes takes the calming words of an American media giant such as Ted Koppel to provide perspective. “The U.S. relationship to China is so intricate and so deep that Americans need to know that it’s more than cheap labour at Wal-Mart or tainted toys,” Koppel said. “We’d have a hard time extricating ourselves from it.”

Well, yes, but who has been creating those stereotypes in the first place? Koppel’s colleagues in the mainstream media.

But the scale of August’s spectacle, and the political risks in doing so, was perfectly realised by McClatchy Newspapers’ Tim Johnson:

“These will be no ordinary Olympic Games. They will be the most extravagant ever put on, designed to dazzle the world and display China’s reclaimed status as a major world power.

“Reaching into its deep pockets, China has erected awe-inspiring new buildings and sports venues, spending an estimated $40 billion, or three times as much as Athens did four years ago.”

China will be expecting some global respect for its efforts. Even taxi drivers are nervous about the event. The BBC reports that gold, silver and bronze have been brought to China from mines in Australia and Chile. Nothing is being left to chance.

Human Rights Watch this week provided a sobering reflection on the challenges facing activists in the Communist country:

“The Chinese government has prohibited local Chinese-language media from publishing unflattering news ahead of the Games, leaving foreign media as the only source of factual reporting about a wide range of crucial issues in China today. But systematic surveillance, obstruction, intimidation of sources, and pressure on local assistants are hobbling foreign correspondents’ efforts to pursue investigative stories.”

Minky Worden, the editor of “China’s Great Leap: The Beijing Games and Olympian Human Rights Challenges” and media director at Human Rights Watch told IPS news service that although the organization doesn’t back a boycott of the Games, they hoped world leaders would act accordingly and “condition their attendance at the highly political opening ceremony on specific human rights improvement.” She went on:

“The year 2008 is also the 30th anniversary of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms and opening policy which transformed the country by allowing economic freedoms – but not allowing political freedom or basically human rights. So you could say that the next leap forward for China needs to be in the area of press freedom, the rule of law and basic human rights.”

Will Australian, Mandarin-speaking Prime Minister Kevin Rudd speak honesty to the Chinese leadership?

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

Westerners must look at China in all its diversity, including voices of reason, writes Antony Loewenstein

During last week’s Global Voices Citizen Media Summit in Budapest, Hungary, where I presented a paper on the role of the internet in repressive regimes, there was much discussion about web issues in this Chinese Olympic year. The main conclusion was that the West fundamentally misunderstands the realities of the issue.

Take Isaac Mao, a leading blog pioneer in China. He didn’t deny the reality of major governmental filtering of sensitive material but questioned the response of Western elites to it. “We don’t have professional media in China”, Mao said. Propaganda is the name of the game, but the web is changing the rules.

CNN was accused of showing bias against the Chinese people during the Tibetan protests earlier in the year. A website, anti-CNN.com, was established to counter these perceived inaccuracies. Mao said that CNN, after the ferocious attacks, altered its coverage to better reflect the sensibilities of the Chinese people. Nobody knows if CNN was deliberately smearing China – Hong Kong academic Rebecca MacKinnon said that it might just have been the work of lowly interns at the station – but many speakers, including Mao, said that the West’s obsession with freedom of speech was often distorting our understanding of the situation.

Mao told the 200 activists, dissidents, human rights campaigners, bloggers and journalists from dozens of countries around the world, such as Kenya, Singapore, Iran, Yemen and Pakistan, that in many parts of the world the rule of law and ending corruption were far more important values.

John Kennedy, the leading translator of Chinese blog posts for Global Voices, said that it was important for Westerners to understand that the Chinese blogosphere wasn’t homogenous and displayed far more opinions than many thought. How much do we really know about general Chinese attitudes to Tibetan self-determination? Is the perception of Chinese netizens being thin-skinned really accurate and different to Westerners being attacked by another society and reacting accordingly?

While leading US-based dissident Xiao Qiang argued that the internet this year had played a key role in pushing ideologies and opinions to the extreme, Kennedy reminded us that many Chinese bloggers sided with the protesting Burmese monks in 2007. In other words, it all depends on who is pushing the authoritarianism.

Former CNN journalist Rebecca MacKinnon talked about a study conducted by Dave Lyons on his Mutant Palm blog. It shows how, compared to coverage of the 2004 Athens Games, “practically none of the sites that exist in China, written in English, are linked to or from the major English Olympics sites outside China. China may be coming out to the world this Olympics, but apparently their webpages haven’t.” We ignore Chinese voices at our peril.

Of course, with just over one month until the start of the Beijing Games, China continues to harass dissidents while imposing onerous visa restrictions on visitors. Most China experts at the Budapest conference told me that Beijing would now be expecting fairly negative global press coverage over the coming two months, considering the PR disasters in 2008.

We have to find new ways to better communicate with Chinese netizens and not ask, as MacKinnon said, “who is more brainwashed?” The emergence of websites with “alternative” versions of reality – the Chinese view and the Western-approved version – is a worrying development for a medium that should unite, rather than divide, people.

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

We ignore the diversity of China’s web community at our peril, writes Antony Loewenstein

Is the West afraid of Chinese patriotism? Some Chinese bloggers think it is but remain aware of the ways in which such sentiments could be misunderstood around the world. One wrote:

“…I love the country, and fervently so. But regardless of how passionately patriotic I am, my goal is to see China be able to continue its economic development, social stability, and continuous political reforms so as to keep up with the times…This is what worries me every time I see patriotism rising up again, wondering if it will completely ruin international relations. Will it ruin our economic growth?”

A recent survey indicates that many Asian citizens are sceptical of China’s growing economic and social power. The conductors of the survey wrote: “Clearly, China is recognised by its neighbours as the future leader of Asia, but its rise does not mean US influence is waning.”

Despite these fears, however, the news last week that President Hu Jintao communicated with some of China’s 230 million netizens was a unique example of what few other world leaders would ever do. Can you imagine a US President or Australian Prime Minister spending time online with voters? “Political liberalization” is starting to occur in China.

The regime is undoubtedly parading a schizophrenic face to the world, both talking about freedom during the Beijing Games but also increasingly tightening the censorship screws. And too much of Western criticism of China ignores the role of multinationals such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft in the filtering process. Chinese-based firms are now working to assist these companies in managing unruly blog coverage or bad PR.

Of course internet censorship is continuing and there are no signs that this will cease anytime soon. Police brutality is worsening, too. A recent conference in Hong Kong tried to place this phenomenon in context and featured countless speakers who wished the Western media wouldn’t portray the Chinese people as oppressed netizens looking for liberation. There is not one single narrative to describe the Chinese internet experience and although the country maintains the world’s most sophisticated web filtering system, many users are able to debate online far more freely than before the technology’s arrival. In other words, progress is in the eye of the beholder.

On the ground, however, many of China’s citizens are paying a high price for “social harmony.” Tibetans are struggling to cope with “re-education” classes and heightened repression. An ABC reporter was allowed a brief visit this week to witness the shortened torch relay through Lhasa but he was able to gauge little from the stage-managed events. Some journalists are finding a way into restricted lands, such as the Sydney Morning Herald’s Mary-Anne Toy:

“In a meadow of blue and white irises in the nomadic grasslands of Gansu, which along with much of the neighbouring province of Qinghai formed the Tibetan kingdom of Amdo before it became part of China, three young monks arrive for an assignation. They have secretly left the Labrang monastery in Xiahe, the biggest and most influential outside of Lhasa, to meet the Herald.

“’We will never regret what we have done, even if we die, because what we are doing is for the sake of the Tibetan people,’ says one, aged 30.

“They want the return of the Dalai Lama, the release of the 11th Panchen Lama (kidnapped by the Chinese in 1995) and for Tibet to be governed by Tibetans, he says.”

Beijing will be able to navigate its way through the August Games and claim the world vindicated its tough stance against any designated troublemakers. But after the fanfare dies down, China will have experienced a year of almost unparalleled negative press.

Where to from there?

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

The Olympic Games will show the world a different kind of China, writes Antony Loewenstein

During last weekend’s Chinese Internet Research Conference in Hong Kong, Hu Yong, Associate Professor at Peking University, said that after the Sichuan earthquake, many people initially started watching TV instead of the internet, but a group of civilian reporters quickly emerged.

Zhang Dong-Sheng, Editor-in-chief of QQ.com, argued that the earthquake reaffirmed the ability of the Chinese press to act like real journalists, but there were still a lot of restrictions.

Zhai Minglei, Editor-in-chief of 1 Bao, said that fear is what holds the Great Firewall together. A poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org even found great Chinese dissatisfaction with their rulers. Furthermore, a recent study of Chinese bloggers reveals that they are more likely to criticise the status quo than the state-run press. Solidarity is no longer possible.

These developments are undoubtedly signs of progress in China. The debate may have been happening in Hong Kong, but authorities in Beijing are increasingly aware of the cultural shifts that the earthquake triggered. Local journalists are now being encouraged to avoid writing pieces about collapsed schools and grieving parents and instead focus on “heart-warming stories”. Officials are tolerating little dissent from the party line.

The impending Olympic Games is revealing this typically close-minded attitude of Beijing towards the foreign media. These issues receive little press in China itself, of course. According to a report in the Beijing Youth Daily, thousands of Chinese parents are currently naming their newborn babies, “Aoyun” (“Olympic Games”), challenging the once-popular “Defend China” and “Celebrate the Nation.”

The New York Times editorialised last week and expressed its displeasure towards the regime’s despotism (something likely to only convince authorities that the West believes it has the right to meddle in China’s affairs):

“There’s an inherent contradiction between China’s desire to invite the world to the Olympics and its effort to deny those [foreign] visitors — and its own people — the most basic freedoms. Last week, an I.O.C. official said he is convinced the Games would be a “force for good” in China. The committee and Western governments need to remind Beijing that the world is watching, and so far the picture isn’t good.”

The allegation by Washington lawmakers that their computers were hacked by forces inside China will only worsen the relationship between Beijing and America. Interestingly, this report appeared at around the same time:

“National security agencies are warning businesses and federal officials that laptops and e-mail devices taken to the Beijing Olympics are likely to be penetrated by Chinese agents aiming to steal secrets or plant bugs to infiltrate U.S. computer networks.”

The profound mistrust between China and the West is unlikely to improve in the run-up to the Games. For those outside Beijing’s inner elite, dissent is certainly growing and the internet is the perfect vehicle to express it. Writer intellectual Hu Ping explains:

“…Ever since the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 4, 1989, a chasm has emerged between the thinking of the establishment and that of regular Chinese and the growing number of dissidents. It is hard to accept what intellectuals ‘in good standing’ with the state and the party have to say: Are they being truthful, or are they merely acting as mouthpieces for the establishment?”

What Beijing will never fully counter is the legitimate challenge to its rule in places like Tibet (as the Dalai Lama said during his recent visit to Australia.) Like other imperial powers such as Russia and America, Beijing refuses to hear alternative voices when provoked.

For those who of us who welcome Washington’s declining fortunes in the world in the years since September 11, 2001, China’s rise brings a new set of challenges. Colonialism is never transparent and the Beijing Games is sadly proving the sceptics right. As speakers contemplated at last weekend’s Chinese Internet Research Conference, one blogger described the current situation in this way:

“The defining atmosphere on the Chinese internet is one of political ideology. Not to the degree of the Mao era. This is the capitalist information age. The problem, though, is that everything that you do see on the Chinese internet is ideologically correct.”

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

Once small freedoms are granted in China, they are not easily reversed, writes Antony Loewenstein

The Sichuan earthquake may have largely fallen off the Western media’s radar but the Chinese people remain focused on the disaster.

A number of bloggers are proving that robust debate is increasingly possible, even for aggrieved parents whose children were killed. Many have been denied the chance to mourn their loss and challenge corrupt building practices in the courts. One cultural critic was even accused of “brown-nosing” to the authorities.

The rapid rise of NGOs and their services will not be quickly quashed. A growing number of Chinese citizens are demanding rights that were unimaginable barely a few months ago.

Chinese soldiers have been brought in to fire missiles into boulders and clear the way for a channel to drain the precarious Tangjiashan lake, the bulging body of water in Sichuan province that threatens 1.3 million quake-affected people living downstream. Sadly, the International Federation of Journalists reports that the regime is again imposing draconian media conditions in the disaster zone after a period of relative openness. Old habits die hard.

Chinese author Ma Jian, writing in the New York Times, poignantly reminds readers:

“For three days last month, China’s national flag flew at half-staff in Tiananmen Square to honour the victims of the devastating earthquake in Sichuan. It was the first time in memory that China has publicly commemorated the deaths of ordinary civilians.

“Crowds were allowed to gather in the square to express sympathy for their compatriots. Despite a death toll that has risen to nearly 70,000, the earthquake has shaken the nation back to life. The Chinese people have rushed to donate blood and money and join the rescue efforts. They have rediscovered their civic responsibility and compassion.”

This outpouring of grief was sharply contrasted with the ways in which the regime managed the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. “Even as doctors were caring for students hurt in the melee”, Ma Jian argues, “The party was rewriting history.”

If Beijing is expecting a smoother PR ride in the months before August, it will be sorely disappointed. Mobile phones are becoming even more popular than the internet to spread news and views and the regime has no major techniques to manage it.

Although few citizens are openly critical of the Games itself, it’s dismaying to read the support offered by the Bush administration for security. Washington has approved the export of “sensitive” equipment and expertise to the regime, despite the Export Administration Act specifically stating the illegality of doing so. Like America providing arms to Israel, America’s supposed concern for human rights always comes after the chance for corporations to make money.

But the situation in China isn’t entirely hopeless. A recent feature article by the Atlantic’s James Fallows on the country’s pollution problems highlights the positive steps being taken by Beijing. Massive issues remain, but Fallows reveals a number of officials who recognise they must take drastic action to alleviate the rapid rise of industrialisation:

“The rule of law is still shaky in China, but Chinese environmental lawyers have filed and sometimes won suits on behalf of citizens who are sick because of pollution or whose farms have been poisoned. A former journalist named Ma Jun has created the remarkable online “China Water Pollution Map” for his Beijing-based group, the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs. Anyone using the Internet can zoom in on a city or village, click on a lake or river, and see the latest pollution readings—and also which factories or farms are creating the problem.

“Jane Goodall’s organization has started “Roots & Shoots” programs to teach Chinese children about environmental problems. Early this year, thousands of people poured into the streets of Shanghai to protest the downtown extension of a Maglev train line, which they believed would give off dangerous radiation near their homes. There was a similar mass protest last year about factory pollution in the coastal manufacturing town of Xiamen.”

The issue of challenging state propaganda and media bias is central if China is to react less defensively when provoked by the West. Of course, Americans, Australians and Europeans are rarely better at hearing criticisms, either.

Are we ready for the official Beijing Olympic cheer?

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

One-party rule is here to stay, but cracks are starting to appear, writes Antony Loewenstein.

For anybody thinking of attending the Beijing Games, China this week announced, in Chinese, the rules of the game. Religious or political banners are banned, presumably aimed at protestors keen to highlight the plight of the Tibetans, Sudanese or Uighurs.

Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, added his wishful thinking to the announcement: “A person’s ability to express his or her opinion is a basic human right and as such does not need to have a specific clause in the Olympic Charter because its place is implicit.” I look forward to Mr. Rogge forcefully advocating the rights of the Dalai Lama during the track and field events.

None of these human rights concerns is overly worrying many of the Olympic corporate sponsors, however. “We think the Beijing Olympics will be a great success”, said a General Electric spokeswoman. The key aim is to lure the millions of newly rich Chinese citizens. New customers are for the taking.

The consumerism of the Chinese population is routinely misunderstood. Greater economic freedom is largely not leading to stronger demands for political rights. John Lee, in a paper released last week by the conservative think-tank the Centre for Independent Studies, perfectly articulates what I discovered during my investigations in China last year:

“The rise of an alternative to the Western liberal model of development – the so-called Beijing consensus – has been the unexpected consequence of China’s rise and is proving a difficult ideational challenge for the West. Where once we placed our hopes on the me generation to push for political change, we must now confront the fact that China’s young elites believe working within a one-party state is the better bet for their and the country’s future.”

While dissent from the party line is now far more easily read thanks to the internet, most netizens are happy to meet boys and girls online, talk to friends, watch movies and buy products. Democratic reform is the furthest thing on their minds, either through inertia, happiness or fear. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s recent entry into Facebook land is merely a clever ploy by the regime to seem in touch with the mood of the young.

What is changing in China, on a fundamental level, is the rise of crowd-sourcing, the growing phenomenon of online crowds gathering through blogs, bulletin boards, chat rooms and instant messaging. The Sichuan earthquake has provided a recent example. China Supertrends blog explains:

“The human search engine has been operating in China, for good and for ill, for at least a year or two already. We profiled several such instances in our book, such as the Kitten Killer of Hangzhou and the infamous Chinabounder blog, both of which involved an intensive human-assisted search that sometimes bordered on a lynch-mob mentality. There are numerous other cases: The South-China Tiger photogate and, in 2008, the misidentification of an Olympic torch relay protester, the 1970’s-style ’struggling against’ a Chinese student studying in America, and the ‘I (Heart) China’ movement that spread like wildfire over MSN to millions of Chinese users in two days.”

These developments, while not radically challenging the ruling elite, is gradually eroding the power of the state and increasing the power of individuals to act together with others. How such moves may affect the mass arrival of Facebook in China remains to be seen.

Overall, like most leading powers, Beijing is happy to use the “war on terror” rhetoric against real and perceived enemies. In the lead-up to the August Games, expect peaceful protests to be viewed as a threat to the one-state ideal. We can gently encourage the regime to understand that such moves only demean its claims of becoming a truly modern state.

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

The suffering of earthquake victims should not mask the authoritarian tendencies of the ruling elite, writes Antony Loewenstein.

The ongoing humanitarian catastrophe after the Sichuan earthquake has revealed a side of China that is rarely glimpsed. After months of controversy over Beijing’s abuses in Tibet and elsewhere – and many Tibetan activists are lamenting the switch of focus – the global community almost seems relieved to be obsessed on something else (though this hasn’t stopped leading actress Zhang Ziyi chastising participants at the recent Cannes Film Festival for knowing little about the disaster.)

Israel has provided aid to victims. Jewish news agency JTA writes: “In a gesture of support, one of the world’s smallest countries is sending aid to the world’s most populous nation in the form of $1.5 million worth of equipment for earthquake relief.”

One American teacher living and working in Beijing wrote in the New York Times: “As tragic as the Sichuan earthquake has been, perhaps it can do some good by helping dispel a widespread myth: that the new generation of Chinese students are materialistic and selfish.” Daniel A. Bell hoped that, “events can dispel another false impression: that young Chinese are xenophobic nationalists who cheer for their country, good or bad.”

Columnist Nicholas D. Kristof expressed a similarly optimistic attitude, though perhaps naively believed that “grass-roots politics” was taking shape in the world’s most populous nation. Although parents who lost children in shoddily constructed schools are demanding action on “tofu” buildings – and bloggers are now harassing corrupt government officials – authoritarian rule is as entrenched as ever.

There is no doubt, however, that China’s rulers, at least briefly, allowed a freer society to be glimpsed and both local and foreign reporters were allowed relatively unfettered access to the disaster zone.

“In the face of such suffering”, writes China’s correspondent for Britain’s Channel 4, Lindsey Hilsum, “it would be heartless and probably over-optimistic to herald the Sichuan earthquake as the beginning of civil society and accountable government in China. And yet, this natural disaster may have done more than years of campaigning by human rights and democracy activists to force the Chinese government to start opening up.”

Realists, however – and my experience tells me that the Chinese Community Party is unlikely to relinquish its grip on power anytime soon – place the regime’s response to the quake in an historical context. Geremie Barme, professor of Chinese history at the Australian National University, says that, “People have responded generously to this vast human tragedy but many are also aware that the Party is zuo xiu, that is ‘putting on a show’ for mass consumption. There’s a tradition reaching back into dynastic times in which power-holders display their virtue through great shows of munificence through disaster relief.”

China’s global, economic power is never far from the surface and Western multinationals have every interest in joining the boom. Yahoo, Microsoft, Google and Cisco were recently grilled in Congress over their role in China. Revelations about Cisco were particularly worrying, though unsurprising. Money talks the loudest language of all. Calls for US web companies to cease locating servers in repressive regimes is one, solid suggestion.

As the Olympics begin in just over three months, it remains unclear what restrictions journalists will face during the event. Censorship is rife, with a popular bridge-building website between China’s Muslim population and Han Chinese shut down in mid-May.

None of these issues stopped one of China’s most popular websites, Sina.com, launching an English language version last week. The country’s growth confounds thinkers and critics alike.

After the devastation of the earthquake is long forgotten, the rules of the Chinese game will remain set. Human rights have rarely been a determining factor in capitalist development and Beijing has no desire to change this equation. Mr X, a foreign media entrepreneur based in China, outlined the rules of this (profitable) game:

“Ultimately, to succeed in China, businesses must assume the goals of the Communist Party as their own. One of the first steps into the market for a major multinational is to hire a government-relations director who will interpret China’s policies and articulate the company’s fealty to those policies as its “commitment to China.”

“In fact, conflating the interests of the Chinese Communist Party with the interests of businesses operating in China is what makes China Inc. work. For the last 30 years, China has been building a social system that establishes an identity between business and broader political or social interests.”

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

The horrific Chinese earthquake has focused the world’s attention on human suffering, but censorship issues were never far from the surface, writes Antony Loewenstein.

The devastating earthquake in Sichuan Province last week shifted the global focus away from the Beijing Olympics. The regime must be pleased.

Initially, the government sprung into action and allowed the media to report relatively freely about the tragedy. As the New York Times wrote:

“…If China manages to handle a big natural disaster better than the United States handled Hurricane Katrina, the achievement may underscore Beijing’s contention that its largely non-ideological brand of authoritarianism can deliver good government as well as fast growth.”

The domestic leg of the Olympic torch relay was scaled back – after massive online protest – a sure sign that officials were sensitive to public sentiment. Even Premier Wen Jiabao was idolised as a hero for taking a personal interest in the rescue effort (though let’s not forget the far-worse humanitarian crisis in Burma.)

The latest news of the quake was sent via blogs, websites and mobile phones. The mini-blogging tool Twitter was also essential in piecing together the calamity. “The Great Firewall” was showing signs of partial collapse. Some Chinese intellectuals praised the regime for its prompt response.

Soon enough, however, the regime reverted to form, “ensuring that what news does get out is patriotic and uplifting”. China’s chief of propaganda visited the official news agency Xinhua and the CCTV network to inform them of the proper angles of coverage. All major websites were ordered to temporarily close for three days of mourning.

Unsurprisingly, other issues have been ignored, such as Tibet. The role of the Dalai Lama – seemingly caught between appeasing the ever-increasing demands of his younger flock and managing never-ending global adulation – remains central to resolving the crisis. There are growing concerns, however, that his pacifist stance has achieved little in the last decades.

The monks in Tibet itself remain defiant yet terrified. New York Times Columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, who covertly entered restricted areas, heard reports of Chinese-led brutality. “There won’t be any more protests before the Olympics,” one monk said. “People are just too scared. The pressure is too great.”

Dissenting voices do exist, including this recent essay by a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Zi Zhongjun bravely wrote:

“It’s the 21st Century, and things around us have made great progress. Chinese people have studied the American general elections quite carefully…The countries around us in southeast Asia, including Vietnam, are already out in front. Korea was originally an autocracy, but they’ve crossed that barrier. Russia, regardless of its many problems, or whether people are saying Putin is pulling back rights, they can’t return to the past; they’ve already crossed that barrier.

“Our democracy hasn’t yet crossed that barrier. It’s hard to push forward now. Even if a truly great leader wanted to push forward, it would still be difficult, because so many people with vested interests are blocking it, and there are obstacles both horizontal and vertical at the lower levels. I think the only thing to do is open up public opinion and let that healthy power express itself…If we cannot open up supervision by public opinion in a timely fashion, who knows what will happen next.”

One of the great untold stories in the rise of China is the collusion between US defence contractors and local security services in building a high-tech police state. Canadian writer Noami Klein recently returned from mainland China and painted a picture of a future closer than we may think.

“China today”, she argued, “represents a new way to organize society. Sometimes called ‘market Stalinism,’ it is a potent hybrid of the most powerful political tools of authoritarian communism — central planning, merciless repression, constant surveillance — harnessed to advance the goals of global capitalism.”

It is already being exported to a variety of countries around the world, including the West. Let’s not forget this when our officials routinely criticise the human rights abusers residing in Beijing.

China, the Beijing Olympics, Tibet and corporate sponsorship are a toxic mix.

So where to from here, a Chinese blogger asks?

Jin Jung-kwon, lecturer in German studies at Chung-Ang University in Seoul:

“China seems to have no intention of making the Olympics a festival that people around the world can enjoy together.”