As
questions continue to be raised about the distinctly 'un American
activities' of certain American firms, it has been announced that
representatives from Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Cisco have refused to
attend a hearing before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus,
held on Wednesday, to discuss the complicity of US technology
firms in internet censorship.

Sources within Congress and the
media, intimate two of the four companies, Yahoo and Google have
refused to respond to requests that they attend, while Microsoft has
refused to publicly comment on its apparent boycott.

For its
part, Cisco Systems, which has been accused of providing much of the
hardware used by Chinese censors, issued only a brief statement saying
they it could not send a representative to put their case before the
Caucus because of a 'scheduling conflict', but that they were willing
to speak to its members, so long as it was 'off the record' and outside
of the remit of the Caucus.

"We're definitely not going to see somebody from Cisco and Microsoft," Lynne Weil, Spokesperson, Congressional Human Rights Caucus.

The calling of the caucus hearing comes
in response to growing concerns over the role of US companies in
internet censorship, particularly the extent to which it has been found
that they have been complicit in restricting the flow of information in
China and other countries.

Although other groups will be
attending the hearing, the Caucus had been particularly keen to hear
testimony from the four tech giants, which are thought to be among
being among the worst offenders.

As such, Microsoft stands
accused of censoring its MSN Space blogging tool to prevent users from
posting on such terms as 'democracy' and 'freedom of speech' and of
deleting blogs that spoke out against the Chinese government, as well
as performing similar acts of censorship in relation to its Chinese
search engine.

Likewise, Google and Yahoo have been accused of
censoring their Chinese language search engines to filter out sites
that do not meet the Official Chinese edicts on history, geography,
economics or politics. An action which Google has also extended to its
Chinese language News service

Additionally Cisco has been
accused of providing much of the advance hardware filtering services
used by Beijing to block access to so-called 'unhealthy site', a
euphemism for web pages that contradict, disagree with, or debunk, the
official government line.

No More No-shows

While
the tech giants can avoid speaking before the Caucus, because it is an
'informal committee' with very little power, they may have a much more
difficult time avoiding a second congressional hearing scheduled for 15
February, which is being held by the House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Human Rights.

As a division of the House
International Relations Committee, the Subcommittee on Human Rights has
the power to issue subpoenas to all involve. Compelling them to testify
whether they like it or not, and allowing official censure if they
refuse.

As yet, representatives of the Subcommittee have not
felt it necessary to issue subpoenas against the four companies.
Instead, hoping that they will choose to attend on a voluntary basis.

"We do have subpoena power .. [but] there has been no decision made whether to use that [power] or not" Brad Dayspring, Spokesperson, House of Representatives Subcommittee on Human Rights

So far Cisco, Google and Yahoo have
indicated that they will attend the Subcommittee meeting. Microsoft
however refused to comment but is expected to attend in some fasion.

When
speaking about the threat that Mainland china is believed to pose to
its disputed neighbor, it can often be difficult to get any specific
information out of either Washington or Taipei, other than a blanket
statement stating that 'China is a threat' containing an estimate
of the number of missiles that China is believed to be pointing at the
island.

However, as most people will know, 'threats and missiles
don't an invasion force make'. Presumably China must have troops, tanks
and jets as well? Yes, it does.

Although China is not keen on
providing numbers and figures relating to the PLA, Angry Chinese
Blogger is now proud to present the official DoD estimate of the forces
that China had within 'striking range' of Chinese-Taiwan during 2005. Excluding missiles, which we are all borded with hearing about, right?

Air

Fighters	425
Bombers	280
Transport	50

Land

Personnel (Active)	375,000
Group Armies	9
Tanks	2,500
Artillery Pieces	5,500

	Divisions	Brigades
Infantry (including airborne)	9	11
Armor	4	4
Mech Infantry	3	1
Artillery Divisions/Brigades	3	5
Marines	0	2

Sea

Personnel	140,000
Destroyers	13
Frigates	34
Tank Landing Ships	20
Medium Landing Ships	15
Diesel Submarines	29
Nuclear Submarines	0
Coastal Patrol (Missile)	34

(Includes both South and East fleets).

All figures are taken from “The Military Power of the People’s Republic of China (2005)”, courtesy of the US Department of Defense.

Depending
on which side of the fence you are sitting on, this coming Wednesday
will either represent another step in the right direction for a
government seeking to ensure that American corporations maintain core
American values while operating overseas, or yet another step in the
wrong direction for a government that is fast moving to hamstring
domestic companies with regulations that will damage their ability to
compete effectively against foreign rivals in expanding markets.

Alternatively,
if you see the world that way, it could also represent a thinly veiled
attempt to rally support for a new “Cold War” against an old enemy, and
a component of a wider campaign to slow down efforts by rising foreign
economy to reach parity with America.

A Meeting of Minds

In
response to growing fears over the complicity of American companies in
Chinese internet censorship, Congress has, under the stewardship of
Republican representative Christopher Smith, begun drafting measures to
prevent, or discourage, US firms from interfering in Chinese
information freedoms by providing the state with the tools that it
needs to apply censorship, or by censoring their own services and
breaching the human rights of users.

As such, this week
(Wednesday 15 February) will see the holding of a Congressional
hearing, charged with evaluating the extent to which American firms
have assisted, or complied with, efforts by Beijing to block Mainland
Chinese from accessing websites that contradict official government
lines of history, politics and social issues, and to decide should be
done about it.

“despite recognizing that the ability to communicate openly is essential to breaking down the walls of communism and repression, several of the top US internet companies have aided and complied with the Chinese Government's demand for censorship in order to enter the PRC market, in essence becoming a megaphone for communist propaganda and a tool for controlling public opinion.” Christopher Smith (Republican), Co-Chair, The Internet in China: A tool for freedom or suppression?”

The holding of the comittee
hearing, titled "The Internet in China: A tool for freedom or
suppression", comes after a number of embarrassing scandals involving
some of America's best know technology firms, including Yahoo; which
recently handed over the internet records used to convict the
journalist Shi Tao, and Cisco; which supplies Beijing with much of the hardware that it uses to block so called 'unhealthy' websites from view.

"Our message to the Chinese is, 'When you build a wall to oppress your people, can we sell you some bricks?'" Lindsey Graham, Senator (Republican), US.

According to initial releases, the
hearing is scheduled to consider testimonies from three expert panels.
One of state and governmental officials, one of industry
representatives, and another of academics and NGO, and will issue draft
recommendations based on its finding.

Press releases indicate that the Panels will be composed as follows

Panel 1

• State Department - James Keith, Senior Advisor for China and Mongolia
• US
  Economic and Business Affairs Bureau - David Gross, Deputy Assistant
  Secretary for International Communications and Information Policy

Panel 2

• Cisco Systems - Mark Chandler, Divisional Vice President
• Microsoft - Jack Krumholtz, Government Affairs and Associate General Counsel
• Yahoo - Michael Callahan, General Counsel
• Google - Unconfirmed

Panel 3

• Reporters Without Borders - Lucie Morillon, Head, Internet Freedom Desk
• China Information Center - Harry Wu
• Radio Free Asia - Libby Liu, President
• University of California (Berkeley) - Xiao Qiang, Director, China Internet Project

Reports have indicate that Cisco
Systems, Microsoft,Yahoo and Google, all four of which have been
implicated in recent censorship or information freedom scandals in
China, have all confirmed that they will be sending representatives to
plead their case on the industrial panel.

All four companies had previously refused to attend a hearing,
held on 1 February, under the auspices of the Congressional Human
Rights Caucus. With three of the four companies snubbing the hearing
outright, and Cisco Systems offering to speak to committee
representatives  but only if it was on a limited agenda, and was outside of the official.

Hard to Avoid

Unlike
the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which was an informal hearing
with limited power and reach, this latest hearing is being held by the
Subcommittee on Human Rights, which falls under the jurisdiction of the
House International Relations Committee, and thus has the power to
subpoena industry groups. Making it all but impossible for the big four
to snub it.

Cautious Approach

While
broadly welcomed by human rights and information freedom advocates,
congress's moves, and calls for legislation on the isue, have not been
without criticism.

As such, some observers have cautioned Congress not to rush into the matter,
and to be wary of producing 'knee jerk' legislation that could be
counter productive, or even dangerous. With observers voicing that any
legislation must be loose enough to allow US companies to assist
foreign state in the legitimate blocking of harmful web content and to
participate in legitimate law enforcement activities, but tight enough
to prevent them from being abused or evaded by groups with alternative
agendas.

Others still have questioned whether such legislation
is necessary, voicing that it could put US companies at a distinct
disadvantage when competing with foreign companies for Chinese market,
and in stead favoring a voluntary code of conduct.

One such
proponent, of a 'code of conduct', is reporters Without Borders, which
earlier presented a six point code to the Congressional Human Rights
Caucus (Human Rights and the Internet – The People's Republic of China)

"E-mail services: No US company would be allowed to host e-mail servers within a repressive country.* Therefore, if the authorities of a repressive country want personal information about any user of a US company’s e-mail service, they would have to request it under a US-supervised procedure. Search engines: Search engines would not be allowed to incorporate automatic filters that censor “protected” words. The list of “protected” keywords such as “democracy” or “human rights” would be appended to the law or code of conduct. Content hosts (websites, blogs, discussion forums etc): US companies would not be allowed to locate their host servers within repressive countries. If the authorities of a repressive country desire to close down a publication hosted by a US company, they would have to request it under a procedure supervised by US judicial authorities. Like search engines, content hosts would not be allowed to incorporate automatic filters that censor “protected” keywords. Internet censorship technologies: Option a: US companies would no longer be allowed to sell Internet censorship software to repressive states. Option b: They would still be able to market this type of software but it would have to incorporate a list of “protected” keywords rendered technically impossible to censor. Internet surveillance technology and equipment: US companies would have to obtain the express permission of the Department of Commerce in order to sell to a repressive country any technology or equipment that can be used to intercept electronic communications, or which is specifically designed to help the authorities monitor Internet users. Training: US companies would have to obtain the express permission of the Department of Commerce before providing any Internet surveillance and censorship techniques training program in a repressive country. A list of countries that repress freedom of expression would be drawn up on the basis of documents provided by the US State Department and would be appended to the code of conduct or law that is adopted. This list would be regularly updated." Lucie Morillon, Representative for Washington, Reporters Without Borders

Ulterior Motives

Additionally,
some observers have also voiced strong reservations about the motives
behind the forthcomings hearing meeting. Accusing those involved of
using human rights as a smokescreen to spread anti-Chinese sentiment,
or as a vehicle to push through legislation aimed at forcing US
companies to invest more in domestic markets by damaging their capacity
to enter growing foreign markets, like China, where censorship is a
prerequisite.

One such critic, Lew Rockwell, the president of
the leftward leaning Ludwig Von Mises Institute, recently launched a
stinging verbal attack against Christopher Smith, the committee's
co-chair.

In his attack, Rockwell accused Smith of planning a
“Cold War” against China, and of using recent Sino-American censorship
scandals as a tool to whip up anti-Chinese sentiment in order to reach
his own anti-China agenda.

“People like Christopher Smith, the neo-conservatives, the Christian right that Christopher Smith is affiliated with, were planning a cold war against China before 9/11. They've just postponed it." Lew Rockwell, President, Ludwig Von Mises Institute (Think tank)

Controversially though, during his
statement on the forthcomings hearing, Rockwell also criticized Smith
for his support of a bill aimed at banning pedophiles from digitally
altering legal material to make child pornography, and for his support
of proposed legislation that would prevent children from purchasing
video games containing depictions of graphic violence; both of which he
classified as being legitimate forms of free expression.

This
second string to his statement has lead some observers to question
whether Rockwell was really attacking Smith for trying to raise
'Anti-Chinese sentiment' in Congress, or whether he was using the
forthcomings anti-censorship hearing as a pre-text to attack Smith for
his support of domestic programs to limit freedom of speech in areas
that are broadly considered to be damaging to civil society.

Both
Rockwell and the Ludwig Von Mises Institute are known for their literal
support of the First Amendment, and both vehemently oppose and
restrictions on freedom of expression, even when it is deemed to be in
the wider public interest.

None the less, many of Rockwell's
feelings are shared by a firm number of China watchers, who have drawn
links between Wednesday's committee hearing and on going efforts,
within the US administration, to brand China as both an economic
predatory, and as rising military threat, that is seeking to supplant
US influence around the world, and have expressed strong concerns over
proceedings.

Similarly, critics have noted that, while the US
administration, the private sector, and the NGO sector, will well
represented at the committee hearing, there will be no panel for
representatives of the Chinese government. Leading some observers to
accuse the committee of 'judging a foreign state using domestic standards' and of 'acknowledging only to two sides of a three sided confrontation'.

With
a congressional committee meeting today to discuss the problem of US
corporate complicity in Chinese state censorship of the internet, and
its co-chair, Republican Representative Christopher Smith, preparing to
role out the initial drafts for the "Global Online Freedom Act", a set
of measures aimed at ensuring that the bricks used to build the "great
firewall of China" don't have 'Made in America; stamped on the bottom,
it is not surprising to hear that  Beijing has, this week, launched a
series of scathing attacks. Hitting out at American efforts to reign in
its corporate entities,

Arguing that its censorship of the web
was both justified, and within internationally accepted parameters,
China's Foreign Ministry went public, on Tuesday, to insist that
American companies that US companies that wish to operate in Chinese
markets must abide by Chinese laws, just as Chinese companies operating
the US must abide by US laws.

"For those foreign companies, if they are going to operate in China they have to abide by Chinese laws." Liu Jianchao, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China

Using the euphemism "supervisory
measures", Liu also laid down a defense of China's internet censorship
regime, in which he rejected US assertions that censorship in China was
either 'endemic' and 'unnecessary', and described the rigid control of
internet forums, and the systematic blocking of sites that debunk the
government line on history, politics and social issues, as being
necessary tools that were being deployed in 'only the best interests of
the Chinese people'.

"the goal [of internet censorship] is to safeguard the people's interest" Liu Jianchao, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China

One Trick Pony?

As
is standard practice for a Chinese government, the Liu however failed
to quantify the exact nature of the material being blocked; instead
raising the spectre of pornography, and describing all other blocked
material only as being "immoral and harmful contents".

Similarly, Liu also failed to clarify how many of the blocked topics, such as 'free elections in Hong Kong', 'elements of Tibetan culture that differ from Han culture', and 'Hepatitis prevention in rural China', might be considered to be either "immoral" or "Harmful" under the conventional definitions of these words.

Double Standards?

In
addition to Liu Jianchao's address, Liu Zhongrong, the Deputy Director
of China's Internet Affairs Burea, also issued a statement attacking
Washington's latest moves.

Speaking through  Xinhua, China's
state controlled media agency, he accued Washington of harboring double
standards, and voiced that it was wholly unreasonable for Congress to
put in place legislation to prevent US companies from censoring their
services in China, while such censorship remained legal in the US.

“it is unfair and smacks of double standards when [foreign bodies] criticize China for deleting illegal and harmful messages while it is legal for US websites for doing so." Liu Zhengrong, Deputy Director, Internet Affairs Bureau, State Council Information Office, China

In defense of his perspective, Liu
cited a section the terms and conditions of the New York Times website.
He however failed to draw any dividing line between New York Times
policy; an open policy that is not mandated by the state, and which is
primarily used to allow the removal offensive or obscene messages, and
China's practice of censorship; which is mandated by the state,  based
on guidelines that are not publicly available, and which is used to
remove any and all perspectives that differ from the official state
line.

"We reserve the right to delete, move or edit messages that we deem abusive, defamatory, obscene, in violation of copyright or trademark laws, or otherwise unacceptable We reserve the right to remove the posting privileges of users who violate these standards of Forum behaviour at any time." Terms and conditions, New York Times website (Cited)

Liu also failed to mention that Chinese
message boards which do not engage in censorship can be closed down and
their owners held responsible the publication of content that is not
censored sufficiently. A situation that does not exist in the US.

Freedom to Criticize

Despite
having the support of numerous civil liberties and freedom of speech
groups, Congress's drive against US firms who are complicit in Chinese
censorship has been the subject of some sharp criticism. With
businesses warning that over regulation could harm American companies
ability to compete in China, by hamstringing them with regulations that
do not apply to either domestic Chinese groups, or to foreign rivals.

Congressional
moves have also been criticized by observer who claim that such
regulations could also be used to prevent US companies from carrying
out legitimate censorship activities, such as those involved in the
fight against extremism and pornography, and could be evaded by
companies like Yahoo, which recently spun off much of its Chinese
operations under a domestic Chinese venture that would most likely fall
out of the scope of any new regulations.

The Global Online Freedom Act?

While
far from complete, initial reports suggest that the “Global Online
Freedom Act”, currently  being penned  by Congress in response to the
censorship issue, will see the creation an "Office of Global Internet
Freedom", a body that will set the guidelines under which al US
companies seeking to enter the Chinese internet sector must comply with.

Such guidelines are speculated to include:

• A universal deceleration of principles on the promotion and facilitation of freedom of speech over the internet
• Restrictions
  on filter technology and services, which will prohibit the blocking of
  selected religious and political terms and key words
• The
  requirement for all companies engaged in filtering or blocking
  activities to clearly law down what they are blocking or filtering
• Limitations
  on the type and scope of web based systems, including email or web
  servers, that can be set up within areas that fall under mainland
  Chinese law

No Single Truth

Although
the complicity of American companies in Chinese censorship has been
broadly condemned, and the corporate defense of 'obeying local laws'
has been dismissed by many, some observers have however been quick to
point out that China is not the only country that requires US
technology interests to censorship their internet services in order to
enter domestic markets.

Indeed, a large number of US technology
companies regularly cooperate or facilitate domestic censorship in the
places like the European Union, where they frequently exclude certain
sites from their search indexes, ban the discussion or promotion of
certain topics over their services, and prohibit the sale of certain
artifacts through their auction sites.

Free Speech, or speech about Freedom?

Although
not in the same league as their complicity with Chinese censorship,
many US companies willingly comply with local European censorship laws
governing elements such as, but not limited to, so-called 'hate
speech'; which is protected in the US under the First Amendment (ACLU V
Skokie), but which receives patchy protection in Europe.

For
example, US internet firms, such as Yahoo, working in Austria must
censor their search engines and auction services to prevent holocaust
denial or the sale of material denying the holocaust, and in France and
Germany the same internet companies can be required to exclude items
glorifying the Nazi from search engines, to remove Nazi memorabilia
from their auction sites, and can be forced to remove pro Nazi debates
from Message boards.

Much in the same way that Yahoo was
'required' to hand over the IP address of the imprisoned journalist Shi
Tao, US companies operating in some EU member states can be also be
compelled to hand over the personal details of those involved in the
sale or promotion of Nazi related material. Even if their actions are
not considered to be a crime under US law.

Difference of Opinion

While
there is an immutable distinction between the censorship of pro Nazi
websites in France, and the censorship of pro democracy websites in
China, many freedom of speech atavists still put the two in the same
category as far as civil liberties are concerned. Arguing that free
speech, barring the direct incitement of murder or the committal of
libel/slander, should be protected even if it is distasteful.

If
you head down to the US National Archive today, looking for information
on China, you might be surprised to find that some of the shelves are a
little lighter than they were the last time that you visited. Why?
Because a vast catalog of material that was deemed as having historical
value, but to possess no strategic importance, has been now been
dragged back into the shadows by the Bush Administration.

The Great Vanishing File Mystery

According to academics and historians,
an unknown quantity of documents relating to China - many of which have
been publicly available for more than a decade - have now been secretly
'reclassified' as 'top-secret', and removed from public view.

Although a full inventory of the
'reclassified' documents is not available, they are known to include a
famous intelligence report in which the CIA described the possibility
of China entering into the Korean war, in the near future, as "not
probable".

The report was presented on 12 October
1950. Two weeks later, China entered the war - Catching western forces
in the Korean peninsular off guard, and throughly humiliating US
intelligence services.

Another of the 'reclassified' documents
is known to be an English translation of a Yugoslavia newspaper,
provided by the US ambassador to Yugoslavia, in 1962, which described
fringe elements of China's nuclear weapons program.

Tight Lipped

Although the Bush administration has yet
to provide any direct explanation as to the reasons for these
reclassifications, and is thought unlikely to be forthcoming with a
list of the documents that it has withdrawn from circulation, it is
known that they were 'reclassified' under a broader program which has
seen 55,000 pages of previously public information, covering a wide
variety of topics and countries, being withdrawn from view.

Much of the material that has been
'reclassified', including all of the material relating to China, is
believed to have originally been declassified under "The 25 year rule".
A piece of legislation that mandates that all records of a certain
types be released to the public, 25 years after their production,
unless there is a 'pressing need' to keep them secret.

It is thought that the 'reclassified'
program began in 1999, after several branches of US the intelligence
services criticized the declassification the declassification of
certain documents as being a "hasty release", but was accelerated after
the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York.

The Perils of Public Release

While it is known that a number of the
'reclassified' records have been copied or used as the basis for other
documents, since their initial release, it is not clear if writers and
historians will be ordered to hand over any material that they have
which was contained in the 'reclassified' documents, or if they will be
barred from releasing books, or other historic accounts, based on the
'reclassified' documents.

Motives

While it is not clear why the documents
relating to China were 'reclassified', the fact that a number of the
other 'reclassified' reports detail tactics used, by the US, to
encourage dissent, within Iran and the former Soviet Union, as a
prelude to so-called 'Regime change', may be an indication of future
trends in US thinking.

Original Posting: Now you see it, now you don't: The Mystery of the Vanishing CIA Reports