|
Angry Chinese Blogger (Mirror)
http://20six.co.uk/angrychineseblogger
powered by
20six.co.uk
|
One China, Two Opinions
In a move that has come as 'no surprise' to observer, Beijing has once again hit out at a twice yearly report, commissioned by the British government, on the progress of Hong Kong since its return to Mainland Chinese rule.
As with previous reports, the latest edition, the 19th such report since the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, criticized China for its slow progress towards Democracy in Hong Kong -Saying that “little or no visible progress” had been made – and called on Beijing to introduce a 'fair and representative' democratic system with the minimum of delay.
| | “We believe Hong Kong should advance to a system of universal suffrage, as envisioned in the Basic Law, as soon as possible.”
Margaret Becket, Foreign Secretary, Britain | |
Business as Usual
As expected, the report provoked outrage in Beijing, and prompted a strong rebuke from Chinese authorities.
Denouncing the report as being an interference in its internal affairs, Beijing denied the validity of calls made on it and, in turn, called on Britain to cease making what it referred to as “Random comments” about domestic Chinese issues.
| | "Hong Kong affairs are China's domestic affairs, and foreign governments should not make random comments about them"
Liu Jianchao, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China | |
No Comment
However, as is traditional for China's current regime, rather than answering the criticizms made against it, Beijing responded issuing a blanket statement of dismissal that denied the existence of the issues raised by the British report.
In response to British calls for China to honor earlier agreements to introduce local rule and free elections in Hong Kong, Beijing denied that there were any problems or inadaquacies with Hong Kong's system that needed to be addressed, instead voicing that the people of Hong Kong had a high level of local democracy, and that this democracy was well protected by Hong Kong law.
| | "The people of Hong Kong are enjoying unprecedented democratic rights legally granted to them".
Liu Jianchao, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China | |
Chinese officials however declined to elaborate on any of the factors behind their dismissal of Britain's report, and were unwilling to provide examples to counter Britain's claims.
State of play
When Hong Kong was returned to the Mainland in 1997, it had been envisaged that the territory would have a functioning democratic government in place for the 10 year anniversary in 2007. However, this has since proven impossible.
Although China has long maintained that it intends to honor earlier agreements to introduce full democratic rule in Hong Kong, Beijing has, on many occasions, actively interfered in Hong Kong's domestic affairs in order to prevent it from changing to a democratic system of government, and to ensure that the democratic elements of Hong Kong's current administration cannot wield greater power than the elements that are appointed by the Mainland government.
An Example this interference includes an earlier decision by Beijing to 'fix' the ratio of elected and appointed officials in Hong Kong at 50/50, and the additional mandate that any increase in the number of elected representatives being met by a corresponding rise in the number of unelected representatives.
A move which means that democratically elected representative cannot force legislation through against Beijing's wishes unless appointed members also rebel against will of the Mainland government. An event which can best be described as being 'highly uncommon'.
Additionally, in 2004, Beijing also announced that it any changes to Hong Kong's laws to facilitate Universal Suffrage, or to prepare for its introduction at a future date, required direct approval from Beijing before they could be signed into law.
To date, no approval has been given for any such changes to be made, and no timetable has yet been set for approval to be given.
Reasoning
Officially, Beijing maintains that these state mandated obstacles to Universal Suffrage, and the accompanying slow progress towards direct democratic elections, is part of a measured approach to ensure regional economic and social stability is maintained.
However, many observers have voiced that Beijing is instead more likely to be afraid that greater democracy in Hong Kong would provoke calls for greater democracy on the Mainland.
An eventuality which Beijing has repeatedly acted to suppress. Sometimes through military force.
Double Standards?
While China has, so far, ruled out the permitting Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong for the foreseeable future, a number of observers responded to Britain's critisizm of China, with critisizm of their own that goes above and beyond the rebuke issued by Beijing.
Accusing Britain of crass hypocrisy, and voicing that the former colonial power has little or no right to lecture China on democracy in Hong Kong, such observers have pointedly noted that Britain, itself, failed to establish even 'a token democratically elected government' in Hong Kong. Instead, choosing to rule over it through a series of politically appointed Governor until it was time to transfered to back to the Mainland.
Dismissal?
Accusations of 'double standards' by Britain have, however, been dismissed by a number of China watchers, who have decried them as being 'ill informed comments' made by 'ill informed people'.
Though not necissarily agreeing with Britain's stance, China watchers have laid several counter defenses of British actions, including the fact that, for the last 50 years of British Rule, Britain was largely unable to introduce democracy to its colony because of the risk involved.
Specifically, because of the risk of a military threat to a democratic Hong Kong from Communist China.
Resumption of Sovereignty?
In the decades prior to the handover, Beijing issued numerous pointed 'reminders' to Britain that it 'reserved the right' to nullify all prior agreements and treaties regarding the handover of Hong Kong and “Resume Sovereignty Early” in the event of Universal Suffrage being introduced.
"Resuming Sovereignty Early" was a veiled reference to seizing Hong Kong by military force. It was commonly used to 'discourage' Britain from changing Hong Kong's status quo in any way that was not to Beijing's liking.
At the time, Britain considered Hong Kong to be 'undefendable' from a Mainland attack, because of the ease at which even a small Chinese force could cut off its supplies of food and water.
| | "It must be fully obvious .... that Hong Kong is indefensible by conventional means and that in the event of a Chinese attack, nuclear strikes against China would be the only alternative to complete abandonment of the colony.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Foreign Secretary, Britain (1961) | |
History?
Historically, Hong Kong had 30 appointed governors prior to its handover in 1997. 28 of whom were foreigners, of British origin, who were appointed by Britain without consulting the Hong Kong public. The remaining 2 were Japanese, and were appointed by Japan during the occupation of Hong Kong. For obvious reasons, they are not officially recorded as being legitimate governors. Original Article: One China, Two Opinions
|
4.8.06 10:52
|
|
One China, Two Opinions
In a move that has come as 'no surprise' to observer, Beijing has once again hit out at a twice yearly report, commissioned by the British government, on the progress of Hong Kong since its return to Mainland Chinese rule.
As with previous reports, the latest edition, the 19th such report since the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, criticized China for its slow progress towards Democracy in Hong Kong -Saying that “little or no visible progress” had been made – and called on Beijing to introduce a 'fair and representative' democratic system with the minimum of delay.
| | “We believe Hong Kong should advance to a system of universal suffrage, as envisioned in the Basic Law, as soon as possible.”
Margaret Becket, Foreign Secretary, Britain | |
Business as Usual
As expected, the report provoked outrage in Beijing, and prompted a strong rebuke from Chinese authorities.
Denouncing the report as being an interference in its internal affairs, Beijing denied the validity of calls made on it and, in turn, called on Britain to cease making what it referred to as “Random comments” about domestic Chinese issues.
| | "Hong Kong affairs are China's domestic affairs, and foreign governments should not make random comments about them"
Liu Jianchao, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China | |
No Comment
However, as is traditional for China's current regime, rather than answering the criticizms made against it, Beijing responded issuing a blanket statement of dismissal that denied the existence of the issues raised by the British report.
In response to British calls for China to honor earlier agreements to introduce local rule and free elections in Hong Kong, Beijing denied that there were any problems or inadaquacies with Hong Kong's system that needed to be addressed, instead voicing that the people of Hong Kong had a high level of local democracy, and that this democracy was well protected by Hong Kong law.
| | "The people of Hong Kong are enjoying unprecedented democratic rights legally granted to them".
Liu Jianchao, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China | |
Chinese officials however declined to elaborate on any of the factors behind their dismissal of Britain's report, and were unwilling to provide examples to counter Britain's claims.
State of play
When Hong Kong was returned to the Mainland in 1997, it had been envisaged that the territory would have a functioning democratic government in place for the 10 year anniversary in 2007. However, this has since proven impossible.
Although China has long maintained that it intends to honor earlier agreements to introduce full democratic rule in Hong Kong, Beijing has, on many occasions, actively interfered in Hong Kong's domestic affairs in order to prevent it from changing to a democratic system of government, and to ensure that the democratic elements of Hong Kong's current administration cannot wield greater power than the elements that are appointed by the Mainland government.
An Example this interference includes an earlier decision by Beijing to 'fix' the ratio of elected and appointed officials in Hong Kong at 50/50, and the additional mandate that any increase in the number of elected representatives being met by a corresponding rise in the number of unelected representatives.
A move which means that democratically elected representative cannot force legislation through against Beijing's wishes unless appointed members also rebel against will of the Mainland government. An event which can best be described as being 'highly uncommon'.
Additionally, in 2004, Beijing also announced that it any changes to Hong Kong's laws to facilitate Universal Suffrage, or to prepare for its introduction at a future date, required direct approval from Beijing before they could be signed into law.
To date, no approval has been given for any such changes to be made, and no timetable has yet been set for approval to be given.
Reasoning
Officially, Beijing maintains that these state mandated obstacles to Universal Suffrage, and the accompanying slow progress towards direct democratic elections, is part of a measured approach to ensure regional economic and social stability is maintained.
However, many observers have voiced that Beijing is instead more likely to be afraid that greater democracy in Hong Kong would provoke calls for greater democracy on the Mainland.
An eventuality which Beijing has repeatedly acted to suppress. Sometimes through military force.
Double Standards?
While China has, so far, ruled out the permitting Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong for the foreseeable future, a number of observers responded to Britain's critisizm of China, with critisizm of their own that goes above and beyond the rebuke issued by Beijing.
Accusing Britain of crass hypocrisy, and voicing that the former colonial power has little or no right to lecture China on democracy in Hong Kong, such observers have pointedly noted that Britain, itself, failed to establish even 'a token democratically elected government' in Hong Kong. Instead, choosing to rule over it through a series of politically appointed Governor until it was time to transfered to back to the Mainland.
Dismissal?
Accusations of 'double standards' by Britain have, however, been dismissed by a number of China watchers, who have decried them as being 'ill informed comments' made by 'ill informed people'.
Though not necissarily agreeing with Britain's stance, China watchers have laid several counter defenses of British actions, including the fact that, for the last 50 years of British Rule, Britain was largely unable to introduce democracy to its colony because of the risk involved.
Specifically, because of the risk of a military threat to a democratic Hong Kong from Communist China.
Resumption of Sovereignty?
In the decades prior to the handover, Beijing issued numerous pointed 'reminders' to Britain that it 'reserved the right' to nullify all prior agreements and treaties regarding the handover of Hong Kong and “Resume Sovereignty Early” in the event of Universal Suffrage being introduced.
"Resuming Sovereignty Early" was a veiled reference to seizing Hong Kong by military force. It was commonly used to 'discourage' Britain from changing Hong Kong's status quo in any way that was not to Beijing's liking.
At the time, Britain considered Hong Kong to be 'undefendable' from a Mainland attack, because of the ease at which even a small Chinese force could cut off its supplies of food and water.
| | "It must be fully obvious .... that Hong Kong is indefensible by conventional means and that in the event of a Chinese attack, nuclear strikes against China would be the only alternative to complete abandonment of the colony.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Foreign Secretary, Britain (1961) | |
History?
Historically, Hong Kong had 30 appointed governors prior to its handover in 1997. 28 of whom were foreigners, of British origin, who were appointed by Britain without consulting the Hong Kong public. The remaining 2 were Japanese, and were appointed by Japan during the occupation of Hong Kong. For obvious reasons, they are not officially recorded as being legitimate governors. Original Article: One China, Two Opinions
|
4.8.06 10:53
|
|
Loyalty For Sale?: The Convoluted World of 'One China' Politics
Things do not appear to be going Chinese-Taiwan's way this week, with the announcement that disputed Pacific island's government has been 'forced' to break diplomatic ties with the African state of Chad, after the Chadian government moved to formally recognize Mainland China as 'the One True China'
| | "To safeguard national dignity, sovereignty, the government of the Republic of China decided to cut off diplomatic ties with Chad and immediately”
Foreign Ministry, Chinese-Taiwan | |
In a statement broadcast on Sunday, officials speaking on behalf of the Taiwanese Foreign Ministry, blamed “evil force” for Chad's apparent defection, and accused China of using a mixture of diplomatic black-mail and economic bribery to pressure Chad into choosing Beijing over Taipei. | | "Knuckling under China's huge pressure, Chad has decided to restore diplomatic ties with Beijing"
Lu Ching-lung (Also known as “Michel” Lu), Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, Chinese-Taiwan | |
Knuckling Under?
Chad's decision to ' switch loyalties' apparently comes after Beijing went against the wishes of the World Bank, and offered Chad 'unconditional' support in building up its domestic infrastructure.
In the past, China has made a number of deals, most notable with Zimbabwe, in which it has offered to assist countries in developing their agricultural and industrial sectors in exchange for political support and access to domestic markets and natural resources.
In Chad's case, access to its oil sector would likely be a condition of Chinese aid.
According to western media reports, the Taiwanese ambassador was told that Chad's decision had been made “in the interest of the [Chadian] state”.
This statement was not immediately elaborated upon.
A Game That Two Can Play?
Taipei's claims that Chad's loyalty had been brought are not without president. Though knowledge of this fact does not go entierly in Taipei's favor.
In October 2004, it was alleged that Taipei extended $US10.3 in aid to Chad after the Chadian government threatened to switch diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. These alligationa were supported by elements within the Taiwanese government of the day.
Chad denied that they had pressed Taipei for money in exchange for support.
| | "The Chad government has never asked for NT$350 million [US$10.36 million] in aid from Taiwan........we are very sad to see this allegation."
Hissein Brahim Taha, Ambassador to Chinese-Taiwan, Chad
| |
Embarrassment?
Though Chad's switching of diplomatic is damaging to Chinese-Taiwan's effort to maintain international support in the face of China's growing political and economic influence, it also comes at a particularly embarrassing time for Taipei.
Until this weekend's announcement, Taiwanese Premier Su Tseng-chang had been due to attend a confirmation ceremony for thee term Chadian President Idriss Deby.
Su's presence at the ceremony, as a representative of Chinese-Taiwan, would have served as a firm reminder of the disputed island state's continued existence as a sovereign entity.
However, with the breaking of diplomatic relations, Su's visit has now been cancelled, and his place is likely to be taken by a representative from Mainland China. Handing the Mainland the recognition that would have been given to it's unwilling neighbor.
Some observers have voiced that the tightness of these events 'might not be coincidental' and have proffered that Beijing may have engineered them so as to cause maximum loss of Face for Taipei.
Had Chad not switched recognition, Su's delegation to Chad would have departed today.
' Coincidentally', Ahmat Allami, Foreign Minister happened to be visiting Beijing at the time of the announcement. Putting him in a position to announce Chad's decision 'in person' to Chinese officials.
Aid?
In addition to breaking off diplomatic relations with Chad, Taiwanese officials also announced that they would be suspending development and humanitarian co-operation with Chadian authorities. Effectively cutting Chad off from all Taiwanese aid.
| | "The Taiwan government terminates diplomatic ties with Chad and halts all aid programmes because Chad has decided to recognize China”
Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Ching-lung (Michel Lu) | |
At present, it is not clear what impact the withdrawal of Taiwanese aid will have on Chad, though it is likely that Beijing has offered to 'compensate' Chad for its losses, in return for recognition.
At present, it is not clear what form such compensation could take in the long term, though some observers have speculated that a portion of this aid will be military in nature.
Commercial Realities?
Despite the breaking of diplomatic ties, and the cancellation of aid deals, it has been authorities have confirmed that the two parties, Chad and Chinese-Taiwan are to continue their commercial relationship.
At present, this relationship is not very deep, but it includes a notable oil deal between Chad and between Taiwanese oil interest 中油 (Chinese Petroleum Corp), which will be permitted to continue.
| | “CPC has drilled for oil in countries which did not have diplomatic ties with Taiwan, so our oil exploration in Chad will continue”
Kuo Pao-long, Manager, CPC | |
Taipei based 中油 (Chinese Petroleum Corp) is a state owned enterprise.
Chad?
Chad, a French colony until 1960, first moved to recognize Chinese-Taiwan as a sovereign state in 1962 under the rule of President Francois Tombalbaye. However Tombalbaye later switched diplomatic recognition to the Chinese Mainland in 1972.
Chad, Under President Félix Malloum, again moved to recognize Chinese-Taiwan in 1977. Resulting in the Mainland breaking off diplomatic relations.
Chad is the 7th state since 2000 (including Nauru, which has since reverted to recognizing Taiwanese sovereignty) to change its diplomatic recognition to the Mainland.
“One China” ..... and One Taiwan (Just don't tell Anybody)
Although Chad's defection to the 160 strong ' One China' camp, leaves the disputed island with only 24 nations recognizing it's sovereignty, Chinese-Taiwan is far from isolates, and enjoys levels of international co-operation and recognition far higher than many undisputed nations.
As such most significant members of the international community pay only lip-service to their respective 'One-China' agreements, and maintain near full, though informal, diplomatic ties with the disputed island.
Usually, these ties are through a series of de facto embassies and agencies, including the 'Taipei Economic and Cultural Office'; which has a presence in many countries, including the US and Japan, the 'Taipei Representative Office'; Chinese-Taiwan's de facto consular presence in Britain, and the 'American Institute in Taiwan'; which serves as America's de facto embassy to Chinese-Taiwan.
Similarly, most significant nations maintain a two-tier system for matters trade, travel and diplomatic policy which clearly distinguishes between Mainland China and Chinese-Taiwan, and which treat the island as if it were a sovereign state.
Example's of this two-tier system include Japanese visa regulations that permit any Taiwanese passport holders unlimited visaless entry to Japan for up to 90 days (Corresponding measures measures with the Mainland permit only Chinese Students to enter Japan without a visa, and limit them to 30 days travel which must be for educational purposes).
Obtaining a business, spouse or tourism visa/permit to a many Western countries is also a notably simpler and more expedient process for a Taiwanese passport holder than a Mainland passport holder.
Additionally, because of their distinctly different governments and reputations, most nations also treat Mainland China and Chinese-Taiwan as distinct sovereign states for purposes of exports, particularly where said exports are of a sensitive nature.
| | “Trade with China is routinely viewed through the prism of Chinese military capabilities”
James A. Lewis, Center for Strategic and International Studies | |
Example's of this include an EU arms export ban that applies exclusively to the Mainland, and the fact that, while the US maintains ' special export restrictions' on sensitive or 'duel use' technology destined for the Mainland, Chinese-Taiwan is covered only by standard export regulation.
At present, Beijing is fully aware of these disparities, but largely tolerates then in exchange for the Face and diplomatic capital that it gains from being ' formally' recognized as 'the One True China'.
Due to tight state control over the media, most Chinese citizens are unaware of the full extent of this two-tier system, or the disparities in world diplomacy that exist between Mainland China and Chinese-Taiwan.
Recognition?
Countries that currently recognize Chinese Taiwan are (In order of recognition)
- The Vatican (1942)
- Panama (1954)
- Haiti (1956)
- Dominican Republic (1957)
- Paraguay (1957)
- Costa Rica (1959)
- Guatemala (1960)
- Salvador (1961)
- Honduras (1965)
- Malawi (1966)
- Swaziland (1968)
- Tuvalu (1979)
- Nauru (1980, re-recognized in 2005)
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1981)
- Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983)
- The Solomon Islands (1983)
- Belize (1989)
- Nicaragua (1990)
- Burkina Faso (1994)
- The Gambia (1995)
- Sao Tome and Príncipe (1997)
- Marshall Islands (1998)
- Palau (1999)
- Kiribati (2003)
Change of Recognition?
Although most significant changes of recognition occurred during the 1970s, including those of the US, Japan and the UN, Chad is the 7th state to switch recognition since 2000.
The other 6 states were:
- Dominican Republic
- Grenada
- Liberia
- Macedonia
- Nauru
- Senegal
Despite dropping recognition of Chinese-Taiwan, in favor of Mainland China, Nauru reestablished diplomatic ties with Chinese-Taiwan in 2005.
|
6.8.06 15:39
|
|
Kara- "NO" - Ke
As lawsuits mount, and concern grows in Beijing over the future of intellectual property in China, it would appear that the jig may soon be up for China's copyright shy KTV booths.
According to announcements from the Chinese Ministry of Culture, Beijing is about to embark on on a number of 'field trials' of an experimental “unified karaoke royalty fee system”, designed to ensure that KTV bars pay to use copyrighted material.
Today?
As things stand, most of China's KTV bars maintain their own music libraries, and can simply extend them indefinitely by purchasing new Karaoke VCDs, or downloading pirate tracks from the internet. Making it very difficult to police them, and almost impossible to ensure that they pay copyright fees.
What payment schemes exist largely focus on charging a flat fee based on the size a bar, and do not unnecessarily reflect its actual use of copyrighted material. Particularly if it is unusually busy.
Tomorrow?
However, under the proposed system, KTV bars will no longer be allowed to maintain their own music libraries.
Instead, they will required to subscribe to a centralized catalog of Karaoke tracks, and to participate in a copyright fee recovery scheme that charges them a more representative fee.
| | "The system contains a list of songs that are copyright approved and it can record how many times a song is ordered, indicating how much copyright-holders should be paid,"
Liang Gang, Ministry of Culture, China | |
The system will not only ensure that artists and record labels are compensated by KTV bars that use their songs, but also that unscrupulous KTV bars cannot 'muddy the waters' honest bars, by refusing to pay for the music that they play.
| | "We've been looking forward to having a legal organization collect the copyright fee for all the music users. Without it, there have always been law cases going on between clubs and record companies. We really hope this new system will charge reasonably while having no effect on consumers."
Zhu Jun, Deputy Secretary General, Shanghai Culture and Entertainment Industry Association (and a KTV bar owner), China | |
According to Xinhua, the system will initially be trialled the scheme in three metropolitan cities; Wuhan, Zhengzhou and Qingdao. If proves to be effective, it is hoped that it will then be extended nationwide.
| | "We'll select about 20 clubs from the over 600 ones in Wuhan for trial and cover them all by early next year."
Wang Guohua, Director, Cultural Market Development Center | |
As yet, it remains unclear how the sceme will cope with foreign owned KTV tracks.
Issues?
Though welcomed by the music industry, a number of questions have been raised about the scheme, both in its operations, and its feasibility.
Cashing In
Although the scheme should guarantee that payments are made for the use of songs, there are, at present, two competing payment structures.
The first of these structures proposes that KTV establishments pay a pre-determined fee – Based on their capacity and volume of trade (number of rooms booked per night) - that will grant them unlimited access to all songs on the catalog on an equal basis with revenue being divided among the artist on the catalog.
This scheme is backed by China's National copyright Association and would be the simplest to put in place. However, it would not significantly distinguish between popular and unpopular artists or allow a precise distribution of revenue to the artists included in the catalog.
The second of these structures is supported directly by the Chinese Ministry of Culture, and proposes that KTV establishments should be given free access to the catalog, but should pay a fixed fee for each individual song played.
| | “The NCA insists bar operators should pay on the basis of business volume, while the Ministry wants operators to pay according to the number of times a song is ordered”
Wang Huapeng, Spokesperson, China Audio-Video Management Collective, China. | |
Although the MoC scheme would be far more difficult to implement, it would distinguish between the songs being played, and would allow copyright fees to be distributed to artists and label based on their individual popularity. Allowing the most popular artists a fairer share of the profits. It would also allow independent charging to be put in place for foreign KTV tracks which, potentially, have uch higher copyright fees than domestic Chinese tracks.
Yesterdays News?
The second of the big questions question regarding the system's feasibility revolves around its potential to become outdated. With new songs being released on a daily basis, questions being asked about how quickly the a centralized KTV system would be updated to include the latest tracks, and whether each individual KTV would be expected to add the tracks to their internal systems themselves, or have them distributed directly to them by Beijing.
| | "In terms of protecting copyrights, it's not completely senseless ... But it's difficult to put it into practice. How can they make sure they have the latest hits in the database?"
Miao Di, Professor, Communication University of China, Beijing | |
Tojan Horse?
Although the KTV scheme is being billed as a copyright protection initiative, and has many supporter within the music industry, news that Beijing is taking an interest in KTV bars been greeted with extreme suspicion by some.
As such, China watchers have expressed alarm, though not surprise, at the news that the catalog of songs at the heart of the system will be subject to state censorship.
| | "[To ensure that standards are maintained] the songs in the database for use by karaoke parlours and consumers need to be censored"
Liang Gang, Ministry of Culture, China | |
In this light, China watchers have voiced that experimental KTV fee system may actually serve a duel purpose:
1) To regulate payments for songs played in KTV bar
2) To regulate the songs themselves.
| | "They say it's for intellectual property rights protection, but it could be censorship in another form.
Zhang Xingshui, Director, Beijing Kingdom law firm, China | |
Unusually, China watchers views appear to be backed up by statements made by the Chinee government, which seem to list copyright protection as a secondary issue to direct media censorship.
| | "This action is aimed at preventing unhealthy songs from becoming karaoke and will gradually solve the copyright contradictions between record companies, artists and karaoke operators,"
Ministry of Culture, China | |
Beijing already employs heavy censorship on all forms of media in China and has, over the last 5 years, enacted numerous laws and scheme in order to reduce the risk of Chinese citizens being exposed to ideas, images, and concepts, that have not been approved by the state.
Hidden Goalposts?
While Chinese officials have publicly confirmed that the list of songs available to the Karaoke bar will be subject to state censorship, Beijing has not to reveal the benchmarks that it will use to choose which songs will be included, and which songs will be excluded, from the list.
Instead, Beijing reviled only that the list of approved music would not contain songs that it considered to be "unhealthy".
Such a response is traditional for the Chinese Government.
Though the criteria for the approved song list have not been made public, China watches and media analysts have put forward a number of categories of song which would likely to be excluded from the list of approved songs. Including:
- Songs that contain sexually suggestive or explicit lyrics
- Songs sung to sexually suggestive or explicit videos
- Songs containing political or semi-political lyrics or themes
- Songs advocating an increase in personal freedom or decrying a loss of personal freedom
- Songs advocating or supporting civil/social change or disobediences of parent, schools or other authority figures
- Songs referring or alluding to homosexuality
- Songs containing slang terms and phrases taken from regional Chinese dialects
- Songs containing slang terms and phrases taken from foreign languages
The list is based on known patterns of censorship for DVDs, music, radio shows and television programs over the last year in China.
Non-Disclosure?
As in many previous cases, Beijing has refused to make public the ground on which it will include/exclude tracks from its list of approved songs.
This is a known tactic of the Chinese government, which commonly regards its censorship benchmarks as states secret, and have acted to jail those who reveal the
This is done for several reasons
1) To prevent the public from scrutinizing Beijing's methods and motives
2) To create an 'air of ignorance' in which people will simply presume that Beijing is correct in its actions
3) To prevent appeal or outcries from being launched based on technicalities and 'second guessing' of Beijing's decisions
4) To prevent the act of censorship becoming a viable topic for discussion
5) To allow Beijing to censor for reasons that would not be publicly understood or accepted
6) To allow the censorship of things that Beijing wishes to promote as never having existed in the first place (for example, separatism and homosexuality), in situations where knowing that the topic was being censored would draw attention to the fact that said topic does, in fact, exist.
7) To force people to censor themselves for fear of attracting the attention of the censors through ignorance of the rules or censorship.
Additional Fears?
While concern have been raised the experimental KTV system may be used as a back door for censorship, they are not the only concerns that have been raised.
Indeed, observers have raised a number of additional fears. Most of which revolve around the possibility that the approved song as the heart of the system might be misused to the advantage/disadvantage of certain groups, or be used in ways that ' distort' the Mainland music market.
Such fears largely fall into three categories.
Corruption
Observers have warned that, unless sufficient safeguards are put in place, the list of songs approved for KTV bars could an easy target for unscrupulous official. Specifically, that a corrupt element might demand money from a label to ensure that their artists are included on the list, or that they might accept bribes form record labels to keep rivals off of the list.
Self Cenorship
Observers have voiced concern that an approved song list may be used by the state as a tool keep artists in line 'at all times', and have cautioned that artists may removal from the list if they expresses sentiment, or preform an action, that is not looked on favorably by the authorities. Even that sentiment or action is not mirrored in their songs. This comes tied into the concern that the list might be used to enforce a ' collective reprisal'. Meaning that an artist who 'falls foul' of authorities might risk having all of their songs removed from the list becaus eof a single song or sentiment, or that a label might have all of its artist removed from the list becaus eof the actions of a single artist.
Similar tactics have been used against Chinese writers for years. With many authors finding that all of the works have been banned from publication because they have expressed an certain opinion, or solidarity with a certain cause, outside of their witting, or because a single piece that they wrote clashed with government ideologies.
Artificial Market Bias
In addition to fears over corruption and self cenorship, analysts have cautioned that an approved song list could be used by the state to manipulate the music market for or against certain groups it.
For example, the approved song list might be used as a weapon against foreign artists (specifically those from Japan and America), or artists from Chinese-Taiwan and Hong Kong, to reduce their ability to compete effectively against Mainland Chinese artists. in much the same way as the ' approved film list' is cutrrently being used limit the entry of foreign films into cinemas.
Similarly, concerns have been raised that this tactic could also be deployed against artist from China's ethnic groups, or artists who put ethnic traits into their music. So as to ' encourage' singers to promote only Han culture.
Maintaining a Healthy Industry?
Though the prospect of having a government approved list of songs at the heart of KTV has been sharply criticized by some, the prospect that Beijing might act to impose nationwide standards on the songs available in Karaoke booths has not met with universal alarm.
Indeed, some observers have voice that the application of state mandated KTV standards could be an important step in maintaining KTV as a ' healthy' industry.
Most of these fields of though come on three fronts:
1) It would serve to better protect China's youth from 'undesirable influence' brought in by irresponsible musicians. Including elements that promote sex, drugs and violence, as well as lax foreign mores that have no place in modern Chinese society
2) It would help to prevent the dilution of China's dominant culture by foreign or ethnic music influences
3) It could be used to provide a 'more even playing field' for China's emerging artists and record labels. Allowing them to compete more effectively against establish foreign artists and multi-national music labels that have large budgets for promotion and distribution.
Such views are not unique to China, and echo views in more liberal western countries. Many of whom have faced calls for government intervention in at least one of these areas.
Examples of countries facing such calls include France: where there are calls for the music industry to promote 'an unbastardized form of the French language', and the US: were pro-family and conservative groups have long protested for official intervention to protect children from 'harmful messages' in Rap and Hip-Hop music (Among other musical forms). Which are stereotypically viewed as promoting promiscuity, drugs and violence against women.
| | "In many popular rap songs men glorify the life of pimps, refer to all women as they think a pimp would to a prostitute, and promote violence against women for 'disobeying.'"
The Exploitation of Women in Hip-hop Culture | |
As ever, opinions remain divided.
The numbers?
Although originally from Japan, Karaoke is one of the most popular pastimes in China. There are an estimated estimate 100,000 KTV bars in China, and the domestic industry is worth approximately $US5 Billion.
According to figures published by Xinhua, China's state controlled media agency, Chinese KTV have a total annual revenue of $US1.25 billion, and so should be paying at least $US1 Million in copyright fees. Original Article: Kara- "NO" - Ke
|
8.8.06 17:42
|
|
Silent Witness
After a brief lull, it would appear that the ongoing problem of Western companies aiding in Chinese internet censorship is, one again, back in the news. This time, care of a newly released report denouncing a number of companies who have ditched democratic ideals in favor of the dollar.
However, while reports of this nature are nothing new, what makes this latest instance unusual, is that it neither originate from anti-China elements in Washington, nor from a Western Human Rights organisations.
Instead, it comes directly from the highest levels of the British Government.
| “We conclude that the collaboration of Western internet companies in the censorship and policing of the internet for political purposes is morally unacceptable.”
Foreign Affairs Select Committee (HC-860-I), 13 August 2006 |
|
HC-860-I?
Although it was not aimed exclusively at China, or at censorship, the report, released this Sunday by Britain's Foreign Affairs Select Committee, blasted China for its suppression of freedom of speech on the web, and drew attention to a number of high profile cases in which Western technology companies had collaborated with Beijing, by censoring their services in ways that either prevent users from speaking out against the Chinese Government, or prevented them from discovering that others had done so.
| “several Western internet companies have recently adapted their products in order to gain access to the Chinese market,by developing technology which censors their web-browsers in accordance with government diktat.”
Foreign Affairs Select Committee (HC-860-I), 13 August 2006 |
|
Additionally the report highlighted instances in which Western companies, such as Yahoo, had handed over the personal details dissidents to Beijing. Thus allowing the Chinese government to prosecute them.
| “[Yahoo provided Beijing with details on the] journalist Shi Tao at the request of the Chinese authorities, leading to his arrest and sentencing for posting on the internet an internal Communist Party minute”
Foreign Affairs Select Committee (HC-860-I), 13 August 2006 |
|
A full version of the report can be downloaded HERE
Exclusions?
While the report was notable for the including such criticism, it was, however, also notable for what it excluded.
Not only did the report failed to address the growing problem of 'homegrown' China's efforts censor the internet, it also failed, almost completely, to even acknowledge that they existence.
Creating the impression, to the uninitiated at least, that domestic Chinese censorship efforts either did not exist, or were not considered important enough to warrant British concerns.
Efforts that were not in the report included
- Legislation mandating that all Chinese must register their full name and address, along with relevant URLs, if they maintain a blog or other website
- The creation of a mandatory ID card based system that automatically ties the content viewed in web cafes to their real world identity
- The state mandated deletion of message board content that conflict with the state line on history, society or politics
- The employment of specialist operative to seed message boards with comments that support the government and denounce those who do not
- Legislation making intent cafe owners and message board administrators responsible for the online actions of their customers if they go against the state.
Notably, the report also concentrated exclusively on software and service providers. Ignoring the fact that much of China's censorship, particularly censorship involving the blocking of website, is actually hardware based.
As such, it failed to name companies such as Cisco Systems, which have provided both the advanced router technology used by Beijing to block website, and the training necessary to use it effectively.
Coincidentally, all of the companies specifically as being offenders, were American owned. No European companies were named as being guilty or complicit.
Words?
Although the HC-860-I recommended that the Blair administration put pressure on China to reduce the number of restrictions placed on its web users, it did not recommend a more thought follow-up investigation. It also stopped short of suggesting that legislation be tabled to penalize British companies if they were found to be complicit in Chinese internet censorship.
| “We recommend that the Government put pressure on the Chinese government to relax its censorship of the internet and its requirement for foreign companies to restrict the political content of their pages. We further recommend that the Government represent to the Chinese authorities the damage which is done to economic growth by continued restriction of the free flow of information.”
Foreign Affairs Select Committee (HC-860-I), 13 August 2006 |
|
Historically, Britain has always taken a 'moderate approach' to China. Preferring political engagement and inclusionism ove legislation and confrontation. Making the prospect of Britain passing any substantive measures against China, or against companies who are complicit in Chinese censorship, remote at best.
As things stand, Britain has little diplomatic or economic influence over China. Giving it few tools with which to “put pressure on the Chinese government“, and observers have voiced the opinion that 'Pointing out the errors of its ways' has never been an effective tool where China is concerned.
Traditionally, China responds to such measures by means of a statement. calling on foreign governments to 'cease meddling in China's internal affairds'.
Deeds?
While the British Foreign Affairs Select Committee offered strong criticism of collaborating companies, but little more, moves are already underway in the US to introduce more concrete measures to combat Western complicity in Chinese online censorship.
These moves include the tabling of HR 4780 - The Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 - which was successfully launched to committee level in February 2006
The bill was tabled by Republican representative for New Jersey Christopher Smith and, if successful, will allow Washington to levy heavy fiscal sanctions against any US company involved in overseas censorship.
|
“To promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to protect United States businesses from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments, and for other purposes.“
Objective, Global Online Freedom Act of 2006, (HR 4780) |
|
Though welcomed by some, HR 4780 has been critisized by human rights interests for being a 'compromise deal', and by industry for industry groups as being 'yet more legislation that serves to make US businesses less effective in the face of foreign competition'
| "If Yahoo isn't doing business in China, someone else will ...[further regulations are] putting American businesses at a disadvantage in the world marketplace."
Sonia Arrison, Director of Technology Studies, Free-Market Pacific Research Institute |
|
For a detailed breakdown of HR 4780, please click HERE :
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee?
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee is a 14 person committee operating under the auspices of the 'House of Commons'; The lower house of the British Parliament.
It is responsible for reporting back to the government on external issues, including Britain's foreign policy and on international human rights.
All of its members are appointed by the Government. However, a person must have first been elected as a Member of Parliament, through direct elections, before they can join the committee.
Current members of the committee are
- Mike Gapes - Chairman (Labour)
- Fabian Hamilton (Labour)
- Andrew Mackinlay (Labour)
- Sandra Osborne (Labour)
- Greg Pope (Labour)
- Eric Illsley (Labour)
- Ken Purchase (Labour)
- Gisela Stuart (Labour)
- John Horam (Conservative)
- John Maples (Conservative)
- Sir John Stanley (Conservative)
- Andrew MacKay (Conservative)
- Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat)
- Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat)
Original Article: Silent Witness
|
13.8.06 20:42
|
|
Rhetoric, Red faces and Retribution
Like it or not, China is now a significant world power.
Years of double digit economic growth, a policy of investment and expansion 'without conscience', not to mention a penchant for buying US dept, now mean that China now commands a fair amount of influence, an dis capable of bribing or bullying a lot of countries into doing a lot of things.
However, there appears to be one small area in which China is all but powerless. One area in which it has no influence, no matter how hard it tries. This being the area of the Dali Lama.
In recent years, China has warned everybody, from established power like as America and Britain, to emerging nations like Lithuania, to 'refrain' from having any dealings with the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader. Much to China's chagrin, most countries have resolutely ignored these warning.
The latest country to ignore Chinese demands is Mongolia, which is currently hosting the Dali Lama.
Arrival?
The Dali Lama arrived in Mongolia this Monday, and kicked off his visit, by speaking at Gandantegchenlin, Mongolia's largest monastery, where he was greeted by a crowd of several thousand Mongolian supporters.
According to his retinue, the Dali Lama's visit is purely religious in nature, and will not be used to further the cause of Tibetan independence.
| | "There is no political agenda to this visit. He's a Buddhist. He's going to give Buddhist teachings. The Chinese are welcome to come to Mongolia and look at the visit themselves"
Tenzin Takla, Spokesperson, Retinue of the Dalai Lama. | |
It has been estimated that around 90 percent of Mongolia's population follow Tibetan Buddhism.
His visit, the seventh since 1979, is expected to last for a week. Due to the sensitive nature of the exiled leader, details of his arrival and itinerary were kept secret until a matter of days before the event.
Chinese Fury
As has now become traditional, Beijing quickly responded to international reports on the Dali Lama's visit by issuing a statement calling on other countries to refrain from hosting the Dali Lama, or engaging with him in any other way.
| | "[We are] resolutely opposed to any country offering [the Dali Lama] a stage"
Foreign Ministry, China | |
Beijing's statement was highly critical of the exiled Tibetan, and denounced him as a separatist who was seeking to destabilize and divide China.
| | "The Dali Lama is not merely a religious figure, but a political exile who over a lengthy period has engaged in splittist activities and hurt national unity"
Foreign Ministry, China | |
As is also traditional, Beijing statement was made to the international press but was purposefully kept out of much of China's domestic media.
This is standard practice in China, were the state often acts to suppress stories that show foreign governments openly defying Beijing where such defiance might cause Chinese citizens to ask questions that the government does not want to answer, or where it would loose the government face to admint that such defiance existed.
Retribution?
Although officials in Beijing reacted with unconcealed anger to the Lama's visit, the response from the Chinese embassy in Mongolia was somewhat calmer.
When questioned about the Lama's visit, embassy officials appeared to conquer with reassurances from Tibet and Mongolia, that the visit was 'non-political' in nature, and voiced that they had no plans to add to previous Tibetan or Mongolian statements on the issue, and no plans to lodge an official protest with Mongolian authorities over the visit.
| | "We do not have any additional statements or comments on the issue at present"
Spokesperson, Chinese Embassy, Mongolia | |
However, embassy officials neither confirmed nor denied that Beijing planned to take retaliatory measures against Mongolia for openly defying China by allowing the visit to go ahead.
During the Dali Lama's last visit to Mongolia, in November 2002, China responded by temporarily closing its borders. Briefly halting trade and disrupting transportation links between the two countries. China later confirmed that a number of trains had been delayed at the border, but denied that it had closed the border.
| | "The border has not been closed. There is no such case. I don't know where you get this report"
Kong Quan, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China (2002) | |
According to Chinese border officials, the trains had been delayed due to 'maintenance work' that was being carried out. These 'Delays' lasted for two days.
'Coincidentally', it has been reported that Air China flights between Beijing and the Mongolian capital Ulan Bator (Ulaanbaatar), were temporarily suspended yesterday. With the morning service not leaving until late evening
Officially, this was due to adverse weather conditions. However, weather reports indicate that the route was free from bad weather and there were clear skies between the two cities.
Separatism?
In contradiction to statements from Beijing, the Dali Lama no longer advocates separatism, and has not done so for many years. Instead, he has stated the belief that Tibet's interests would be best served by being an autonomous state within 'Greater China', rather than an independent state outside of China.
| | "I am not seeking independence. I am seeking self-rule. I think that benefits both Chinese and Tibetan people"
Dali Lama | |
This is commonly known as 'the middle way'.
Autonomy?
Despite allowing them to save face and to retain China's current borders, the idea of Tibet having autonomy within China is largely viewed as being 'unacceptable' by Chinese officials, and Beijing has publicly dismissed such overtures and compromises from the Lama as being a 'smokescreen for independence' that would see Tibet claiming Chinese land to form a Tibetan state that 'has no basis in history'.
| | "Knowing that his separatist stance has no place in the world today where peace and development prevail, the Dalai Lama now adopts a new strategy of playing down separatist sentiments while trumpeting the highest degree of autonomy of the so-called 'greater Tibet'..... The Dalai Lama's concept of 'greater Tibet' which includes other areas inside the Chinese territory inhabited by Tibetans, has never been formed in history"
Legqog, Regional Chairman, Tibet (Speaking in regard to the Dali Lama's visit to Mongolia in 2002) | |
Were Beijing to grant Tibet 'true' autonomy within China, it would mean granting Tibet the right to retain its own culture, traditions and national identity. Something which Beijing refuses to do at present because all of the above are distinctly different from China's dominant Han culture, and demonstrate the fact that a high level of separation exists between the two regions.
State of Play
Officially, Tibet is guaranteed a high level of independence under Section 6 of Chinese constitution. Which provides the sub state with the legal right to maintain its own cultural and religious identity under the auspices of their respective regional governments.
| | 民族自治地方的自治机关自主地管理本地方的教育、科学、文化、卫生、体育事业，保护和整理民族的文化遗产，发展和繁荣民族文化。
第一百一十九条, 第六节, 中华人民共和国宪法
The organs of self-government of the national autonomous areas independently administer educational, scientific, cultural, public health and physical culture affairs in their respective areas, sort out and protect the cultural legacy of the nationalities and work for the development and prosperity of their cultures.
Article 119, Section 6, Constitution, China | |
To date, Beijing maintains that Tibetan culture and traditions have been fully respected and supported by the local admnistration and by Beijing.
| | "In the past 40 years or so, Tibet has inherited and developed its cultural heritage, Tibetan customs and religions have been fully respected, and people have enjoyed full freedom of religious faith"
Xinhua, State Controlled media agency, China | |
However, despite reassurances over Tibet, it is the position of the Chinese government and the government of Tibet, which is directly appointed by the Chinese government, that many elements of Tibetan culture and religion are 'dangerous symbols of Tibetan nationalism' and should be either be irradiated or re molded into a more 'acceptable' form.
As such Beijing has long acted to push Tibetans into taking on Han traits imported from China proper. Claiming that they are 'encouraging' Tibetans to advance by discarding their own 'outdated cultural epitaphs' in favor of 'more advanced' Chinese practices.
To assist in this effort, Beijing routinely bans any aspects of Tibet’s indigenous culture that separates Tibetan and Chinese identities, or which Beijing fears could be used to encourage Tibetan nationalism. Such restrictions include a blanket prohibition on the possession of images of the Dali Lama, or a recording of his voice.
In reality, the only aspects of traditional Tibetan culture which are allowed to be practiced freely in Tibet are often those which can be used to:
A) Promote tourism
B) Propagate the idea that Tibetan traditions are ‘relics of the past’ that belong in museums and bare no relevance to the people. Original Article: Rhetoric, Red faces and Retribution
|
23.8.06 11:56
|
|
|
