The glide path to an open society

The International Olympic Committee (IOC), the Switzerland-based group responsible for Olympic event planning, has been putting pressure on China to open the Internet during the games in Beijing as part of host-nation commitment to media openness. As Ars Technica reported, the results have been decidedly mixed. Though Chinese Internet users have noted that access to sites like wikipedia and blogspot have been somewhat improved, links to sensitive topics, such as the Tiananman Square incident of 1989 and the current uprising in Tibet, are either inaccessible, or available inconsistently.

The fact that China even responds to such requests for media openness, however, is a function of China's status as host of the Olympics. Further, the fact that China, as a WTO member, has become heavily dependent on exports and trade links to the rest of the world makes the Chinese government that much more sensitive to perceptions of their country.

Opposition to human rights abuses is perfectly justified. Such criticism should continue, and if necessary, be followed up with symbolic action.  There are, however, limits.  The lesson of history, even in this case, is that "engagement" is a better policy than isolation.

There was a time when China was more resistant to outside complaints about the way it treated Chinese citizens. In the days of Chairman Mao, the government could afford to pay little attention to world opinion because China was not dependent on outside trade. Isolated regimes have carte blanche to heap abuse on their citizens, particularly in totalitarian ones where all power is centered around the whims of one person. The millions who died under Mao are a testament to that fact.

When Richard Nixon visited China in 1972, he would have been perfectly justified expressing his moral outrage at what Mao had done to his country, all the while demanding that China become an open society along western lines. He didn't. He just opened diplomatic lines with China, thus paving the way for the beginning of trade with the country.

One could argue that America was acting simply in its own self-interest. China and Russia were enemies at the time, and the deep freeze of our long-running cold war had led to many strange bedfellows. Likewise, there were a billion-plus potential Chinese consumers to attract the interest of corporate executives at American companies.

These were all likely factors in Nixon's policy of "detente." Whatever the case, detente provided the political cover for Deng Xiaoping, a man who was almost run out of government during the cultural revolution and whose own son was made a paraplegic as a result of it, to place his country on the path to an open economic system. Granted, that didn't equal political openness, a fact he made clear when he sent the Chinese army into Tiananman Square to end a growing pro-democracy rally at a time when communist regimes were toppling like dominos in eastern Europe.

But economic freedom is a rather essential prerequisite to political openness. Poor people make bad democrats, as more pressing needs tend to come before concern over who claims to rule them. Richer nations can afford to educate their citizens better, a fact which tends to enhance the democratic process. Further, the entire system of global trade demands a consistent application of law within the country (the better to attract foreign investors), not to mention access to real information about events in China as well as the rest of the world (economic decisions thrive on good information).

The Chinese government tries to filter the Internet, to be sure, but that is a bit like trying to filter the ocean. They catch some of the more egregious bits of criticism, but can't possibly catch everything. When you consider that the Internet isn't the only source of information into China and note the spread of cell phone and satellite communications, you will see that China is on a glide path to an open society. All we had to do was agree to interact with them despite the glaring flaws of its government...a government that, truth be told, it should be the responsibility of Chinese people to change.

It's easy for governments to ignore tha opprobrium of other governments. It's a lot harder for a government to ignore the opinions of billions of bloggers and journalists and activists and consumers around the world, all of whom have a right to take part in the debate because they are part of the global economic system from which China yields so much benefit. Nixon didn't agree to ensure that Americans can't express their displeasure at the antics of the Chinese regime.

That lesson should be remembered in parts of the world closer to home (well, home for me, as I am an American). Cuba, under Raul Castro, shows signs that he wants to make his island nation more open to the outside world. He has allowed wider access to essential communications technologies, such as cell phones and the Internet (and toasters, though that is a function of a more consistently operational electricity grid built with funds from Hugo Chavez, a fact that I'm sure cheers the poor of Venezuela to no end). Unfortunately, the Bush administration continues to insist that there will be no "detente" with Cuba until it has free and open elections.

We didn't insist on such things with China. Though China is hardly a democracy, we've gotten them a heck of a lot closer to that ideal by opting to trade with them than 40+ years of isolation have achieved in much-abused Cuba.