Executive summary - Companies like Google, supported by several Western governments, propagate the idea that there is a universal

set of norms that should govern the internet and that the free flow of information is one of the most important of these. The Chinese government, however maintains that control over the internet is a primary concern, especially because of the need to maintain stability. Missing from the debate is any discussion of the view Chinese internet users may hold on questions of censorship and freedom of speech. However, using survey data from the World Values Survey, which includes questions on issues such as human rights and freedom of speech, it is possible to analyze responses on the basis of the frequency of computer use, which may be taken as a proxy for internet use. The data show that Chinese in general have a very positive view of the degree of respect for human rights in China compared to respondents in other countries. But the responses from computer users in China show that they have a higher proportion of negative views than non-computer users. This suggests that rather than being cut off from information, internet users in China are able to form opinions on this question based on information either online or offline that comes from diverse sources. Among computer users in China the priority given to maintain order is even greater than among the general population. Any expectation that large number of Chinese internet users share the same values as those espoused in statements from Google management or the US government is likely to be misplaced. While a small proportion of internet users may give priority to freedom of speech, most internet users in China are unlikely to give priority to the universal norms advocated as internet freedoms by the US and other Western countries. They are likely to agree with the Chinese government views that control of the internet is necessary for maintaining stability. The expectation that 400 million Chinese internet users want to tear down the information curtain is likely to be disappointed, but the Chinese government could afford to allow greater freedom on the internet and trust its online population not to rush en masse headlong to undermine stability.

Duncan Freeman

Will China Google for freedom? The Chinese, the internet and free speech

Duncan Freeman is a research fellow at BICCS. His recent work focused on

BICCS Asia Paper Vol. 5 (3)

Chinese freedom? Google for political values and Chinas climate change policies.

Will China Google for freedom? The Chinese, the internet and free speech Duncan Freeman
Abstract. Censorship and freedom on internet has become an area of contention between the US and China. This has shifted focus from commercial to political and security concerns. The announcement from Google Inc that it had adopted a new position on china and wanted to negotiate with the Chinese government on how to operate an uncensored service there, was followed the US secretary of state giving a speech on internet freedoms. The Chinese government has rebuffed these moves, and insists on its right to control the internet in the name of ensuring stability. Using survey data which categorizes respondents by their computer use, this paper analyses the extent to which internet users in China may share with those in Western countries the same views on freedom of speech. The paper finds that only a small proportion of Chinese internet users are likely to give priority to concerns over freedom of speech, and give much greater weight to maintaining order. Expectations that internet users will press for removal of censorship, or that freer flow of information will lead to instability may be equally misplaced. Key words: China, internet, censorship, human rights, norms.

1. Introduction: China, Google and internet freedoms The internet has become a new measure of the rise of China, and the frictions its integration into the international system creates. The declaration by the US company Google that it might withdraw from China if it is not able to provide uncensored services there shifted the international focus on the role of the internet in Chinas development from mainly commercial to political and security concerns. The US government emphasized this by its intervention on behalf of Google and by Secretary of State Hillary Clintons

subsequent speech on internet freedoms. The response of China to Googles statement, while cautious, showed no sign of acceding to the demands for uncontrolled access by Western internet companies to the market in China. The intervention of the US government, produced a stronger reaction, indicating that it could undermine US-China relations. The dramatic growth of the internet in China has attracted attention on many levels. While the business and economic dimension has been important, there has been considerable focus on the social and political role of the internet. The importance of the internet in expressing and shaping public opinion, and its possible influence by and on government policy in China has been widely noted. The phenomena of nationalism on the internet, for instance surrounding the violence in Tibet in March 2009, and the Olympic torch procession has an international dimension, although interest has focused on its domestic impact in either sustaining or undermining the rule of Chinese Communist Party. The case of Google, and the policy adopted by the US government on internet freedoms gives a different focus by bringing to the fore the question of the degree to which there are universal norms that apply to the internet across the world, including in China, and how they relate to political impact of the internet. These norms are not just a question of government policy and regulation, but also concern expectations that users themselves have for how the internet will operate, and the role it has in their own society. The Chinese government may have a policy of controlling information on the internet through censorship or other means because it has an interest in maintaining its own rule, but the degree to which such a policy may be acceptable will depend on how far internet users see such a policy as conflicting with their goals in using the internet and their wider view of questions such as freedom of speech. By advancing the concept of universal internet freedoms that override other considerations, the US government appears to believe that all internet users will have the same view on this question, no matter whether they are American or Chinese. Several factors are crucial in the debate that has arisen following Googles new position, notably the extent of censorship in China, how effective it really is and what, if any, policy Western companies and
Google for freedom? 4

BICCS Asia Paper Vol. 5 (3)

governments should adopt. Underlying the dispute over censorship, freedom of speech and the internet in China is a belief apparently held by the management of Google and the US government that the internet and its users are the same, or perhaps must be the same, the world over: in todays connected world we all Google, and we all Google for the same things. Googles new position and the US governments stance on internet freedoms focuses on the problem that in some countries, notably China, it appears to be impossible to Google for freedom and form opinions independently of the censored view of the world provided behind an information curtain. This paper explores the degree to which this is the case in China and to which Chinese internet users may share the same priorities as those apparently held by Google and the US government. The paper analyses the views of computer users in China to questions of human rights, particularly freedom of speech, and compares them to views held by users in other countries. In order to achieve this, the paper relies on data from the World Values Survey (WVS) based on a breakdown by frequency of computer use as a proxy for internet use. The announcement by Google that it would consider is position in China says simply that it is in part a result of censorship of the internet there, and states the companys intention to negotiate with the Chinese government on how it may be able to offer an uncensored service.1 The position statement by Google does not provide any clear link between the internet, censorship, and wider The Chinese political questions, but this theme was subsequently government has adopted by the US government. The US secretary of made perfectly clear that despite the state Hillary Clinton made this clear in a speech on guarantees of the internet freedom: On their own, new technologies do constitution freedom not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, of speech is not an but the United States does. We stand for a single absolute right. internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the worlds networks. Theyve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent
BICCS Asia Paper Vol. 5 (3)

political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world.2 One of the first reactions to the US government position came in a statement from Chinas Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which said that, China's Constitution guarantees people's freedom of speech. It is China's consistent policy to promote the development of the internet. China has its own national conditions and cultural traditions. It supervises the internet according to law, which is in parallel with the international practice.3 China insisted that it was open to any foreign internet company that obeyed Chinese laws. The Chinese government has made perfectly clear that despite the guarantees of the constitution freedom of speech is not an absolute right, and that there are other priorities that may override it. More revealing of Chinas position than this bald statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was the discussion by Wang Chen, the head of the State Council Information Office, who insisted that China was right to exercise control over the internet. He made a close link between the internet and wider policy concerns: The internet is already an important national infrastructure, and information on the internet is a strategic national resource, and is closely connected to the lives of the people. Indeed, protecting the secure operation of the internet and the secure flow of information on the internet is a basic requirement for protecting national security and the basic interests of the people, and also stimulating economic development and a flourishing culture, and maintaining a harmonious and stable society. 4 As Wang made quite clear in his discussion, the security of the internet that he was referring to is not simply against criminal activity such as fraud or hackers, but much broader, and would require development of the internet in ways that differ from the outside world: We must actively adapt to new changes and new requirements of the situation, carefully implement the policies and a series of important measures of the centre concerning strengthening the construction, development and management of the internet. A plan must be made based on domestic and
Google for freedom? 6

international conditions, and the challenge of internet security must be actively addressed from the standpoint of national security, information security and cultural security, and awareness of internet security strengthened. Wang went on to say that, An internet environment that is healthy, civilized, secure and orderly must be carefully constructed in order to advance on the path of development of the internet with Chinese characteristics. In her speech, the US secretary of state was willing to admit that the internet had its negative aspects and that there were security problems. She noted that, The same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaida to spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent. And technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights. On questions of security, Clinton pointed her finger at cyber crime, but also on governments, terrorists or others, saying, Those who seek to disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government and our civil society. Internet security in the sense meant by the Chinese government went unrecognized in Clintons speech. There was no recognition that the uncontrolled flow of information could in itself be a destabilizing force with negative consequences. On behalf of the US, Clinton also staked a claim to the universality of its view of the internet: Now, ultimately, this issue isnt just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. Its about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors. Universal internet freedoms advocated in the US are apparently on a collision course with Chinas emphasis on internet security and stability. Behind these positions are assumptions about the importance of the internet, and indeed Google itself, and its role in informing and expressing public opinion. This goes beyond the question of Googles small market share in China. On the one side there is an a conviction as stated by the US
BICCS Asia Paper Vol. 5 (3)

secretary of state that uncontrolled access to information on the internet is a fundamental right, like freedom of speech. In the case of China, this is an essential element required to bring about democratization. The Chinese government, in contrast, has stated its position that it intends to continue to control the information available on the internet, the main reason being that its priority is to maintain stability. Uncontrolled information on the internet threatens that stability. The one thing all apparently agree on is that Chinas political system at least to some degree persists in its existing form only because it controls information on the internet. An important element missing from this discussion is the perspective of internet users in China. Both the claims of Google and the US government and the concerns of the Chinese authorities are based on an expectation of what Chinese internet users think or want. Western critics assume that Chinese internet users share their demand for free access to information on the internet, and that they have the same priorities with regard to rights such as freedom of speech. The Chinese government also seems to believe that unrestricted flow of information will lead to internet users making political or other demands that would lead to instability. While some Western media reports have carried interviews with Chinese giving their opinions, or have quoted those of bloggers or people in China commenting in discussion forums on the issue, it is difficult to judge how representative such views are of Chinese opinion. Interviews by journalists of a handful of people are unlikely to be representative. Comments on the internet, no matter how many, come from a self-selected group, not least because they exclude those without access to the internet, and also because they represent only the views of those motivated to comment. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that views on this issue in China differ greatly from those current in the West, and that values such as freedom of speech are not a priority for Chinese internet users. Their priorities in this regard tend to be very different from those of Europeans or Americans. The WVS has been conducted for over twenty years in various countries around the world, including China where the most recent survey was carried out in 2007. It covers a broad range of issues related to values, including on questions such as democracy and human rights. The results of
Google for freedom? 8

the surveys have been used by Ronald Ingelhart and others to argue for modernization theory. The fundamental tenet of this has been that changes in values are related to economic development. With regard to China, Ingelhart himself has argued that it is increasingly adopting selfexpression values that point the way toward a greater focus on values such as free speech.5 Is this really the case in China, especially with internet users? How do Chinese judge questions of human rights if they are hidden behind an information curtain? Do internet users in China place as much value on freedom of speech as the management of Google appear to, or as much as the American people as Hillary Clinton would like to believe?

Total Italy US Japan Sweden Poland India 1012 1249 1096 1003 1000 2001 2015 1227 2064

There is a lot of respect for individual human rights 4.4 15.5 2.0 16.3 4.5 25.5 24.0 9.4 14.5

There is some respect 50.8 46.3 46.3 67.4 59.7 29.8 40.5 56.4 51.5

There is not much respect 37.6 30.9 40.4 14.9 30.5 12.8 9.1 30.8 29.3

There is no respect at all 4.2 3.6 2.1 0.5 4.4 0 2.3 2.7 1.8

Dont know 2.3 0.9 9.2 0.9 0.8 31.8 23.5 0.6 2.5

2. Internet users and human rights The WVS data shows that in general Chinese people have very positive views of their own human rights. The WVS asks a question on the degree to which human rights are respected in the respondents country. 6 The question, which asked whether in the respondents country there was a lot, some, not much or no respect for individual human rights, shows that compared to a sample of developed and developing countries in Europe, Asia and North America,7 Chinese give a very positive assessment of their human rights. For instance, 24.0 percent of respondents in China say that there is a lot of respect for human rights there, and 40.5 percent say there is some respect. These responses are more positive than in India, where 25.5 percent of respondents say there is a lot of respect and 29.8 percent say there is some respect, and are similar to the US, where the figures are 15.5 percent and 46.3 percent. In some Western countries, the positive views are not so strong. In Italy, only 4.4 percent of respondents say that there is a lot of respect for human rights, although 50.8 percent say there is some respect. On the other side of the coin only 2.3 percent of Chinese respondents say there is no respect at all for human rights, and 9.1 percent say there is not much respect. In the US, the figures for the same responses are 3.6 percent and 30.9 percent, while in Germany they are 1.8 percent and 29.3 percent.

China Taiwan Germany

Table 1. Respect for Human Rights (percent). Source: WVS

The assessment of human rights varies across different groups in China. When broken down by age, occupation or education we find that only a very small proportion give negative assessments of human rights in China. However, a higher proportion of younger, economically better off and more educated Chinese have positive views than their older, less well off and less educated fellows. For example, among respondents aged 15-29, 23.9 percent believe there is a lot of respect for human rights and 48.5 percent believe there is some respect for human rights, compared to 26.0 percent and 37.6 percent among those aged 50 or more. Among respondents with higher education 15.1 percent believe there is a lot of respect for human rights and 50.0 percent believe there is some respect for human rights, compared to 22.6 percent and 26.0 percent of those with no formal education.8 (A more detailed discussion of these findings can be found in Europe, China and Expectations for Human Rights, BICCS Asia Paper Vol. 5, No. 1, 2010.) Compared to developed countries, there is a very high percentage, 23.5 percent, of dont knows among respondents to this

BICCS Asia Paper Vol. 5 (3)

Google for freedom?

10

question in China. This also occurs in India where 31.8 percent of respondents gave dont know as the answer to this question. In China these dont knows are concentrated among the old, economically less well off and undereducated. For instance, among younger Chinese, there is a much lower proportion of dont knows than among older Chinese. The data suggest that in countries such as China, views on human rights are in the process of being formed, and it is not certain they will have the same content as in the West. The survey data does not provide a definition of human rights, and so leaves open the question of how respondents interpret the concept, but it raised doubts over the degree to which we can assume that Chinese view their human rights condition negatively.

groups very high proportions of respondents give maintaining order in the nation, compared to human rights values such as protecting freedom of speech. Among Chinese respondents aged 15-29 years 47.5 percent give maintaining order in the nation as their first priority, compared to 31.7 percent of those aged 50 or more. By contrast, and only 4.7 percent of respondents aged 15-29 years and 2.9 percent of the 50 or over group give protecting freedom of speech as their priority. Similarly, 50.0 percent of respondents with tertiary education gave maintaining order as their first priority compared to only 22.1 percent with no formal education. Even among those with tertiary education, only 6.3 percent gave protecting freedom of speech as their first priority.10

3. Priorities of internet users The value attached to human rights does not exist in isolation. Questions such as freedom of information on the internet must be seen in the context of priorities. The fact that freedom of speech is seen as an overriding priority by people in one part of the world does not mean that it is viewed in the same way in others. In China, the WVS survey data suggests that low priority is given to human rights, or at least to those rights that Western governments focus on. Respondents in the WVS were asked to give their first priority among the following: 1. Maintaining order in the nation, 2. Giving people more say, 3. Fighting rising prices, 4. Protecting freedom of speech.9 The data show that when asked about their priorities, Chinese people give a much lower priority to rights as they are normally defined in the West. In China only 3.8 percent of respondents gave protecting freedom of speech as their first priority, compared to 21.2 percent in France, 26.0 percent in the UK and 17.4 percent in the US. A much higher proportion, 34.9 percent, in China gave maintaining order in the nation as their first priority, although this was similar to some countries in the West. But it is also true that young, economically better off and more educated Chinese give a much higher priority to stability than their older, less well off and less educated compatriots. Among these
BICCS Asia Paper Vol. 5 (3)
Order in the nation 28.5 31.3 20.3 31.2 37.0 46.1 26.9 34.9 57.2 53.2 22.8

Total France UK Italy US Japan Sweden India China Taiwan Russia Germany 1001 1041 1012 1249 1096 1003 2001 2015 1227 2033 2064

Give people more say 20.4 30.3 20.1 27.5 36.0 20.3 13.0 11.1 10.4 13.2 37.5

Fighting rising prices 29.6 10.1 34.5 21.8 18.1 2.8 38.8 26.0 29.2 29.6 24.1

Protecting freedom of speech 21.2 26.0 23.6 17.4 4.7 30.2 5.7 3.8 3.2 2.7 13.8

Dont know 0.1 1.7 0.3 0.6 4.2 0.6 15.5 23.8 0.1 0.9 1.3

Table 2. Aims of Respondent (percent). Source: WVS

What can we expect from internet users in China? Does the internet make a difference? The WVS does not ask about internet use, but it does ask about frequency of computer use, and the latter may be taken as a reasonable proxy for the former. Data for the survey can be broken down in to those

Google for freedom?

12

respondents who do not use a computer, those who use one occasionally and frequent users. We may assume that people who use a computer frequently are also likely to be frequent users of the internet.

A lot of respect Italy Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use US Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Sweden Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Poland Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Germany Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use 4.4 4.1 5.3 0 12.1 12.9 17.8 0 4.70 3.50 4.90 0 15.1 16 16.3 0 14.1 11.3 17.6

Respect for human rights No Not respect Dont Some much at all know Total respect respect 50.00 45.70 44.30 59.70 0 47.1 46.2 48.9 0 60.3 64 69.3 37.8 54.4 61.8 71.1 0 45.6 51.6 56.8 25.00 41.00 44.30 30.50 0 33.5 33.3 30.9 0 22.6 21.2 12.4 31.7 34.6 31.9 20.5 0 34.4 31.4 22.8 0 5.50 3.90 3.30 0 3.3 4.3 3.6 0 0.9 1.4 0.3 16.6 5.5 2.2 3.1 0 3.4 0.5 1.5 0 3.7 3.2 0.9 25.00 2.60 3.50 0.80 0 0.9 0.2 0.2 0 2.2 2.1 0.4 13.9 1.1 4 385 230 390 0 217 340 638 0 129 141 733 14 557 175 253 0 674 594 790

about one billion Chinese who are not online. This is reflected in the WVS survey data from China: out of 2,015 respondents in China 1,223 (60.7 percent) stated they never used a computer. An even starker reminder of the limitations of the penetration of online society is that a further 352 (17.5 percent) said they did not know what a computer was. For people in the West, for whom the internet and Google are integral parts of daily life, these figures are a useful reminder the limitations of the impact of online information and its control in China. Most of China is beyond the direct reach of the internet. Of the respondents, 267 (13.2 percent) were occasional computer users, and 169 (8.4 percent) were frequent users. In any debate over censorship of the internet, we are talking about a direct impact on perhaps one fifth of all Chinese.
Not much respect 0 40.1 40.3 41.3 12.4 12.8 13.9 13.5 4.3 8.3 12.4 20.1 16.6 30.3 31 31.6 No respect at all 0 1.9 2.3 1.4 0 0 0 0 2.8 1.6 2.2 7.1 0 1 2.2 5

A lot of respect Japan Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use India Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use China Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Taiwan Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use 0 1.6 2 2.5 18.1 26.6 33.3 38.5 22.2 25.8 24 14.8 35.4 10.9 11 6.4

Some respect 0 42.5 48.2 48.9 27.8 27 41.8 42.7 23.9 41 53.6 51.5 48 56.6 55.4 57

Dont know 0 13.8 7.3 5.9 41.7 33.6 11 5.2 46.9 22.7 7.1 6.5 0 1.3 0.3 0

Total 0 369 355 358 580 1082 237 96 352 1223 267 169 9 485 278 455

Table 3. Respect for human rights and computer use (I) Source: WVS

One of the most immediate conclusions to be drawn from the data is the lack of penetration of computer use in China. While much of the discussion on internet censorship focuses on the 384 million Chinese with internet access, it is easily forgotten that by simple arithmetic this leaves
BICCS Asia Paper Vol. 5 (3)

Table 4. Respect for human rights and computer use (II) Source: WVS.

Google for freedom?

14

The views of these people are central to any consideration of the impact of censorship. As already noted, Chinese in general have very positive views of how human rights are respected in China. This generally positive view is shared across all groups categorized by computer use. However there are some differences between groups. Only 14.8 percent of frequent computer users in China believe there is a lot of respect for human rights compared with 25.8 percent who never use a computer and 22.2 percent of those who do not know what a computer is. At the same time 4.3 percent of respondents who do not know what a computer is believe there is not much respect for human rights, compared with 20.1 percent of those who use a computer frequently. On the other hand, while 23.9 percent of respondents who do not know what a computer is believe there is some respect for human rights, 51.5 percent of frequent computer users believe this to be the case. The high proportion of dont knows in China also varies considerably across different groups: while 46.9 percent of respondents who do not know what a computer is also give a dont know answer to the question on human rights, this falls to only 6.5 percent for frequent computer users. Computer users have more definite views of human rights than the rest of the population, but the opinions are both positive and negative. Among computer users there is a higher proportion of people with a negative view of the human rights situation in China than among other Chinese respondents, but there is a clear majority whose view is positive. Computer users in China have a variety of opinions on human rights, most of them positive, and while others hold views that are more negative. The negative views among computer users, while still a minority, are somewhat higher than the rest of the population. Despite the information curtain which is supposed to surround the internet in China, it appears that Chinese with access to the internet are able to form a broad range of opinions on questions such as human rights, some of them negative. Contrary to what might be expected if an information curtain did exist, a significant minority adopt views that indicate their sources of information either online or otherwise are far from providing a single, uniformly positive censored view of the world.
BICCS Asia Paper Vol. 5 (3)

France

UK

Italy

Nl

Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use

Order in the nation 0 34.8 26.2 22.6 36.5 28.4 31.9 33 25 23.9 19.6 16.9 33.5 44.8 26.1 23 0 29.6 26.6 34.2 34.7 53.2 56.2 52.7 0 30.6 21.8 17.1

Aims of respondent (first choice) Give Fighting Protecting people freedom of Dont rising more know speech prices say 0 12.7 22.1 27.9 25.8 32.9 29.3 29.7 25 16.1 21.3 23.1 8.4 11.6 12.6 0 33.1 31.7 24.3 19.3 10.5 16.2 15.9 0 30.7 37.7 43.2 100 34.5 27.9 24.9 10.6 12.7 12.5 7.7 50 41.8 37.8 25.4 34.5 25.6 13.9 14.9 0 21 25 21.7 31.5 33.9 24.1 24.1 0 29.1 25.9 18.6 0 18 23.2 24 27.1 24.2 25.5 26.9 0 16.6 18.7 33.6 32 20.2 47.1 48.3 0 16.1 14.9 19.6 11.8 1.3 2.8 5.8 0 7.2 14 19.4 0 0 0 0.2 0 1.7 0.6 2.1 0 0.5 0.4 0 0 1 1.3 0.5 0 0.2 1.8 0.1 2.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0 2.2 0.3 1.3

Total 2 382 169 420 7 306 211 502 4 385 230 390 2 164 234 639 0 217 340 638 35 1083 464 422 0 674 594 790

US

Russia

German

Table 5. Aims of respondent and computer use (I) Source: WVS

Google for freedom?

16

Aims of respondent (first choice) Order in the nation Japan Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use Dont know PC Never use PC Occasional use Frequent use 0 37.4 35.8 38 22.4 24.8 41.8 40.6 16.5 34.6 52.8 48.5 40.7 50.3 62.7 61.4 Give people more say 0 34.7 37.5 35.5 8.1 12.7 20.7 27.1 4 11.6 12.7 18.3 0 8.6 11.5 11.7 Fighting rising prices 0 18.2 19.4 17 39.1 42.4 27.8 22.9 22.2 28.7 20.2 22.5 59.3 37.3 23.5 23.4 Protecting freedom Dont of speech know 0 3 3.9 7 7.4 4 8.4 9.4 2.8 3.5 4.5 6.5 0 3.5 2.4 3.4 0 6.8 3.4 2.5 22.9 16.2 1.3 54 21.3 8.6 3.6 0 0.2 0 0

Total 0 369 355 358 580 1082 237 96 352 1223 267 169 9 485 278 455

India

China

Taiwan

Table 6. Aims of respondent and computer use (II) Source: WVS.

If many Chinese computer users are able to form varied judgments on human rights in China, some of them negative, does this mean that they are ready to tear down the information curtain? We have already seen that Chinese in general have very different priorities compared to Western countries. For Chinese, values such as stability greatly outweigh human rights such as free speech, especially among the young, economically well off and educated. Are Chinese with internet access likely to be any different? The survey data show that as a group internet users in China are likely to have very strong preferences for priorities such a maintaining order and to give low priority to freedom of speech. While 16.5 percent of respondents who do not know what a computer is and 34.6 percent of those who never use a computer give maintaining order in the nation as their first priority, the proportion is 52.8 percent among occasional computer users

and 48.5 percent for frequent computer users. This compares with 2.8 percent of respondents who do not know what a computer is and 6.5 percent of frequent computer users who give protecting freedom of speech as their first priority. While Chinese with access to the internet are somewhat more likely than those without to give priority to freedom of speech, they are far outnumbered by those who prioritize maintaining stability. In many Western countries a much larger proportion of computer users give priority to protecting freedom of speech than in China. In the Netherlands 48.3 percent of respondents who were frequent computer users gave this as their priority, and in Italy the figure was 33.6 percent, in the UK it was 26.9 percent and in the US 19.6 percent. Computer users in China appear to be a very responsible or conservative group of people. In China, although there is a slightly greater proportion of frequent computer users who give first priority to protecting freedom of speech compared to those who rarely or never use a computer, they remain only a very small minority. China is not unique in its priorities. In Taiwan only 3.4 percent of frequent computer users gave protecting freedom of speech as their priority, compared to 61.4 percent who gave maintaining stability. In India, Japan and Russia there were similarly low percentages of respondents who gave protecting freedom of speech as their first priority. The data for computer users in China provides a strong contrast with that for Western countries. In Europe and the US, there is in general a much higher priority given to freedom of speech. It also true in some Western countries such as Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden that frequent computer users give significantly greater importance to freedom of speech compared to other groups, although the difference varies from country to country. Even in Western countries, there are large groups among computer users who give priority to stability, but they are much smaller than in China, and in some countries such a France and Germany, this is much less of priority among frequent computer users. While different from developed countries in the West, the value priorities of Chinese in the Peoples Republic of China are not an isolated case. The views held in mainland China closely parallel those to be found in Taiwan on the issue. Indeed, the survey data suggest that in some
Google for freedom? 18

BICCS Asia Paper Vol. 5 (3)

respects the views held by mainlanders on these issues are actually slightly more liberal than those held in Taiwan. The parallel between mainland China and Taiwan indicates a set of values that run deeper than current political systems. The pattern of views in relation to computer use is similar in China and India. In India there is also limited penetration of computer use and across all groups there is low priority given to freedom of speech, even among frequent computer users. Computer users in India also give high priority to maintaining stability. Even in Japan, which by contrast is a developed nation, there is low priority given to freedom of speech and a high priority to stability. While it would be wrong to assume a common set of Asian values, Chinese are not alone in placing low emphasis on values such as freedom of speech. What is remarkable is the degree to which Chinese computer users, including those in Taiwan, give great emphasis to stability.

would feel any strong motivation to support its position on freedom of speech. On the contrary, the survey data suggests that many more internet users are likely to agree with the argument that the need to ensure stability overrides any concern with freedom of speech. Of course, there is the possibility that views would change, but it seems unlikely, given the evidence on value preferences among computer users that the universal norms for the internet propounded by the US government would find strong support in China. Paradoxically, the assumptions of both the US and Chinese governments may be misplaced. The expectation that 400 million Chinese internet users want to tear down the information curtain is likely to be disappointed, but the Chinese government could afford to allow greater freedom on the internet and trust its online population not to rush en masse headlong to undermine stability.

References 4. Conclusion: misplaced assumptions Although the survey data do not provide answers as to why people hold the views they do, there are possible answers that may be suggested. The views of Chinese are formed by a complex set of factors. Using a computer or accessing the internet is only one part of the equation. The most obvious assumption is that people who use computers in China are from those groups in society who are most likely to see stability as beneficial. They are generally young, educated and well off, living in urban China, and are those most likely to have an interest in stability as they are beneficiaries of the existing system. Any assumption that large numbers of Chinese internet users share the claimed priorities of Google management or the US government over freedom of speech is likely to be misplaced. Human rights values such as freedom of speech are not completely ignored by Chinese, but they exist in a very different context compared to developed countries in the West. While many Google users may regret any decision to abandon China, since they will loose a service they appreciate, they are likely to be few who
BICCS Asia Paper Vol. 5 (3)

Google Inc (2010) A New Approach to China, January 12. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html 2 State Department (2010), Hillary Clinton, Remarks on Internet Freedom, January 21. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm 3 Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2010) Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu's Remarks on China-related Speech by US Secretary of State on "Internet Freedom", January 22. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/t653351.htm 4 Wang Chen (2010), Internet Media Must Carry the Burden of Maintaining Internet Security [Wangluo meiti yao qieshi danfu weihu wangluo anquan de zeren], January 14. http://www.scio.gov.cn/zxbd/wz/201001/t520724.htm 5 Ronald Inglehart (1990), Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton University Press, Princeton, Ronald Inglehart (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization, Princeton University Press, Princeton, Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel (2005), Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel (2009), How Development Leads to Democracy: What We Know About Modernization, Foreign Affairs, March/April.
1

Google for freedom?

20

V164.- How much respect is there for individual human rights nowadays (in our country)? Do you feel there is: 1. There is a lot of respect for individual human rights 2. There is some respect 3. There is not much respect 4. There is no respect at all? 7 Selected countries/samples from WVS: China [2007], France [2006], Germany [2006], Great Britain [2006], India [2006], Italy [2005], Japan [2005], Netherlands [2006], Poland [2005], Russian Federation [2006], Sweden [2006], Taiwan [2006], United States [2006]. Not all survey countries were included in both questions referred to in this article. The totals in some tables presented here may not add up to 100 percent as a result of the exclusion of responses such as No Answer, Not Applicable, etc. 8 Duncan Freeman and Gustaaf Geeraerts (2010), Europe, China and Expectations for Human Rights, BICCS Asia Paper, Vol. 5, No. 1. 9 V71: If you had to choose, which one of the things would you say is most important? And which would be the next most important? First choice. Possible answers: 1. Maintaining order in the nation 2. Give people more say 3. Fighting rising prices 4. Protecting freedom of speech. 10 Duncan Freeman and Gustaaf Geeraerts (2010), Europe, China and Expectations for Human Rights, BICCS Asia Paper, Vol. 5, No. 1
6

BICCS Asia Paper Vol. 5 (3)

Google for freedom?

22