US plans to harness Internet to its hegemonic goals

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

The China-Google dispute
US plans to harness Internet to its hegemonic goals
By Alex Lantier
23 January 2010

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's January 21 speech on internet
freedom marks a major escalation of Sino-American tensions. Amid a
censorship dispute between China and the search engine firm Google,
Clinton unveiled a global policy of Internet-driven regime-change,
under the guise of freedom of speech.

On January 12, Google posted a statement, "A New Approach to China,"
on its blog. It charged that a series of cyber security attacks
originating from a computer in Taiwan were being controlled from
China. These attacks targeted dozens of US defense and communications
firms—including Northrop Grumman, Adobe Systems and Juniper
Systems—and the email accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

Google said it was taking the "unusual step" of reporting the attacks
because they went "to the heart of a much bigger global debate about
freedom of speech." The company threatened to undo internet censorship
programs it had installed at Beijing's request on its Chinese
Google.cn search engine. It noted this might "well mean having to shut
down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China."

The US government did not immediately comment, and international media
were initially skeptical of Google's position. A Financial Times video
asked for the motives behind Google's threat to leave China, noting
that Google had not shut its operations in Pakistan after that country
blocked all access to Youtube, a Google subsidiary, amid allegations
of vote fraud in its February 2008 election. A Wall Street Journal
article called Google's decision "provocative."

In a January 15 piece, "After Google's Stand on China, US Treads
Lightly," the New York Times cited James A. Lewis of the US Center for
Strategic and International Studies: "Everything we are learning is
that in this case the Chinese government got caught with its hand in
the cookie jar. Would it hold up in court? No."

The Times added that the event laid bare “the degree to which China
and the United States are engaged in daily cyberbattles, a covert war
of offense and defense on which America is already spending billions
of dollars a year."

This comment underlines the real state of US relations with China,
which the US views as a rising strategic competitor. Washington is
occupying Afghanistan, a country bordering China's troubled western
region of Tibet, and is launching attacks into Pakistan, China's main
ally in the Indian subcontinent. The US is expected to soon resume
large-scale weapons sales to the Taiwanese regime, China's historical
rival, and US alliances with India, Australia and Japan implicitly aim
to block China.

Sino-American economic interdependence—the US is China's biggest
export market, and China is the single largest holder of US government
debt—is also destabilizing global politics. The US has repeatedly
demanded that Beijing increase the value of its currency, undermining
China's export competitiveness and costing millions of jobs in China.
In the aftermath of Obama's trip to Asia last year, US officials have
increasingly pushed for punitive tariffs on Chinese exports.

It was in this context that Clinton delivered her speech. Though the
US press focused its attention on her remarks on the China-Google
dispute, Clinton's comments were part of a far broader agenda. She
delivered the hour-long speech to a high-level gathering, including
several senators and foreign ambassadors. Clinton said
"representatives of our International Visitor Leadership Program on
internet freedom from China, Colombia, Iran, Lebanon and Moldova"—all
countries hosting or targeted by US intelligence efforts—were also
present.

Clinton attacked Chinese Internet censorship, saying, "Even as
networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are
cropping up in place of visible walls. Some countries have erected
electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions
of the world's networks. They've expunged words, names and phrases
from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens
who engage in non-violent political speech."

This was, however, only a cover for the assertion of a global mandate
for Washington to destabilize or overthrow governments worldwide.
Clinton praised the Twitter and Internet organizing behind US-backed
"color revolutions," including most recently the June 2009 Green
Revolution that unsuccessfully tried to overturn the reelection of
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. She noted, "In Iran and Moldova
and other countries, online organizing has been a critical tool for
advancing democracy and enabling citizens to protest suspicious
election results."

Other US-backed "color revolutions" include the 2003 Rose Revolution
that installed President Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia, the 2004
Orange Revolution in Ukraine that placed President Viktor Yushchenko
in power, and the failed 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan and 2006
Denim Revolution in Belarus.

Clinton reserved the right to engineer such “revolutions” anywhere in
the world: "The United States is committed to devoting the diplomatic,
economic and technological resources necessary to advance [Internet]
freedoms. We are a nation made up of immigrants from every country and
every interest that spans the globe… We will work with partners in
industry, academia and nongovernmental organizations to establish a
standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies
and apply them to our diplomatic goals."

She cited as an example the possibility of extending State Department
funding to create mobile phone applications to "allow people to rate
government ministries," and "also to ferret out and report corruption."

Clinton singled out China for criticism: "There are so many people in
China now online. But countries that restrict free access to
information or violate the basic rights of Internet users risk walling
themselves off from the progress of the next century." She said the US
would raise its differing views with China "candidly and consistently"
in the coming period.

Immediately after this public rebuke of Beijing, she issued the
following remarkable warning: "Information freedom supports the peace
and security that provides a foundation for global progress.
Historically, asymmetrical access to information is one of the leading
causes of interstate conflict. When we face serious disputes or
dangerous incidents, it's critical that people on both sides of the
problem have access to the same sets of facts and opinions."

Taken at face value, such comments suggest that US-China relations
have become so tense that Washington foresees the risk of war unless
the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does an about-face and allows pro-US
political tendencies to freely express their views. This would include
religious and pro-democracy activists, as well as Tibetan or Xinjiang
separatist groups.

Stripped of its cynical rhetoric, Clinton's speech is a US challenge
to the CCP's monopoly of political power in China, and a threat to use
"color revolution" methods against Beijing, or any other state, should
it refuse to bow to Washington's strategic interests.

In the lead-up to Clinton's speech, Chinese officials had played down
the importance of the dispute with Google. Vice-Foreign Minister He
Yafei told China's state wire service Xinhua that the Google dispute
should not be "over-interpreted" or linked to US-China relations.

After Clinton's speech, however, Chinese media took a harsher tone.
Yesterday, the Chinese People's Daily ran an editorial calling US
Internet plans a "shot in the arm for US hegemony." It charged
Washington with having a stranglehold on Internet infrastructure, and
with using Twitter and other communications resources to destabilize
regimes in Iran and Libya.

The Global Times, another state-run Chinese newspaper, wrote: "The
hard fact that Clinton has failed to highlight in her speech is that
the bulk of the information flowing from the US and other Western
countries is loaded with aggressive rhetoric against those countries
that do not follow their lead." It added, "Countries disadvantaged by
the unequal and undemocratic information flow have to protect their
national interest, and take steps towards this. This is essential for
their political stability as well as normal conduct of economic and
social life."

Though it carefully censors news of popular protest, the Chinese state
press is well aware of massive discontent in China, and fears that it
could come under the control of political forces hostile to the CCP.
The number of “mass incidents” —that is, protests, strikes or riots,
typically repressed by mass police or paramilitary actions—reached
120,000 in 2008, up from 90,000 in 2006 and 74,000 in 2004.

According to some estimates, the figure for 2009 could be 230,000. A
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences study in December found that of the
77 major “mass incidents” in 2009, 30 percent were spread by the
Internet and mobile phones.

In this context, Clinton's speech amounts to a threat that the State
Department might try to seize upon and direct protests to undermine
the Chinese government—as it already has done in Eastern Europe, the
ex-USSR and the Middle East.

One does not have to be a supporter of the Beijing Stalinist regime to
realize the reactionary character of such plans. The "color
revolution" regimes have all proven to be unpopular and
anti-democratic pawns of Washington, with Yushchenko being voted out
in the recent Ukrainian election. In China—an enormous state, riven by
internal ethnic, regional and class divisions—such a policy by the US
would pose the risk of unleashing large-scale violence and civil war.

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/jan2010/chna-j23.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********