Chinese Censorship Imperils Internet, Congressman Leach Says.

Asia panel chair urges government, industry to uphold access to information

The Chinese government's censorship activities have implications for
the integrity of the Internet as a worldwide forum allowing free and
instantaneous exchange of information, according to the chairman of
the House International Relations Committee Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific.

Congressman James Leach (Republican of Iowa) delivered a statement
February 15 at the opening of a joint hearing on the Internet in China. The
hearing was held in tandem with the International Relations Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations.

"We live in an era in which the advancement of human understanding
and the growth of the global economy cannot operate effectively without the
broadest possible dissemination of knowledge," Leach said.

The Chinese government significantly has increased its ability to
control political discussion on the Internet over the last year, the
congressman said, noting that Chinese authorities have arrested and imprisoned
dozens of journalists, writers and editors and have shut down one-quarter of
the country's private Web sites for failure to register with the
government.

Leach cited Chinese state-run media reports that the Chinese
government has "put together the world's most extensive and comprehensive
regulatory system for Internet administration," and "perfected a 24-hour, real-time
situational censorship mechanism."

Observing that one Chinese official had suggested that China's
approach could become an example for global Internet governance, the
congressman urged U.S. vigilance in protecting the basic function of the
Internet, "lest it devolve into a mere accretion of state-controlled sub-networks."

Rule of law within China also suffers as a result of government
censorship, according to Leach.

Even though the Chinese Constitution requires that restrictions on
freedom of speech and press be openly legislated and transparently applied,
he said, "In reality, restrictions imposed by officials are often premised
upon ill-defined concepts of 'social stability,' 'state security,'
and 'sedition' that mask what is in fact mere intolerance of dissent."

The technical structure of the Internet is "substantively agnostic"
and can be used for good or ill, Leach said. He said American technology
companies have become embroiled in the debate over China's censorship practices
"because of allegations that they have become complicit in the
restrictive activities of the Chinese security apparatus."

Leach acknowledged that U.S. companies have engaged in behavior that
appears problematic.

"[I]t is difficult to see how altering one's search engine to exclude
politically sensitive materials is anything other than voluntary
cooperation in content-based censorship by Chinese authorities," he said. "The
same would appear to be true for the removal or blocking of politically
sensitive weblogs or other documents."

By preemptively acquiescing with the Chinese government's
restrictions to protect themselves from "commercial or criminal reprisals," Leach
said, American companies are undercutting the U.S. government's efforts to
promote freedom of information and have squandered the potential leverage
that they might have gained from public pressure for liberalization.

"Citizens of China are willing to risk jail for freedom of
expression when certain American companies are unwilling to risk profits for the same
principle," he said.

The hearing was scheduled to include testimony from representatives
of several technology companies, including Microsoft Corporation, Cisco
Systems Inc., search engine service Google Inc. and Internet service
provider Yahoo! Inc.

In the end, Leach said, the Chinese government's censorship efforts
might not be able to overcome technological advances or the expectations
of an increasingly sophisticated population.

But in the meantime, he said, the U.S. government cannot ignore the
issue -- particularly as it concerns the responsibilities of U.S.
corporations.

"American search engines and content hosts are considered the most
sophisticated in the world," Leach said. "All of us -- governments,
industries, and concerned citizens -- should work together to ensure
that citizens of China and elsewhere are not denied access to these
tools."

Following is the full text of the congressman's statement:

(begin text)

Remarks of Rep. James A. Leach, Chairman
Subcommittee on Asia & the Pacific
Committee on International Relations
U.S. House of Representatives

Hearing on "The Internet in China: A Tool for Freedom or
Suppression?"

February 15, 2006

I am pleased to join Chairman Smith in convening this hearing on the
Internet in China, a timely subject that deservedly has been
receiving increased public attention.

In addition to Chairing the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, I
also serve as Co-Chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on
China. I note this connection because I would like to commend the
groundbreaking work that the Commission staff has done on China Internet issues during
the past four years. They have assembled an unparalleled database of
English-language resources, including human rights reporting and
translations of applicable Chinese laws and regulations, which are
available on the front page of the Commission website (CECC.gov). I strongly
commend these materials to the attention of my colleagues and members of the
public who are interested in a deeper understanding of these issues.

As highlighted in the Commission's annual report, Chinese citizens
face increased government regulation of the Internet. Censorship is seldom
helpful to any society. We live in an era in which the advancement
of human understanding and the growth of the global economy cannot operate
effectively without the broadest possible dissemination of knowledge.
Ultimately, the Chinese government may not be able to stem the tide
of information unleashed by new technologies and by the growing
expectations and sophistication of its own population. But in the meantime, the
situation of freedom of expression in China remains challenging.

This is a particularly awkward week for the United States to raise
human rights concerns about another country given the U.N. draft report on
Guantanamo, as well as the continued ramifications of incidents at
Abu Ghraib. But nonetheless, there are issues in U.S.-China relations
that cannot be ducked, particularly when they involve the
responsibilities of U.S. corporations.

During the past year, the Chinese Communist Party has improved its
ability to silence and control political discussion on the Internet. Public
security authorities have detained and imprisoned dozens of
journalists, editors, and writers, and shut down one quarter of the private Web
sites in China for failing to register with the government.

These actions by Chinese officials have implications not only for
China, but also for the integrity of the Internet itself, as a worldwide forum
allowing the free and instantaneous exchange of information. According to
China's own state-run media, it has "put together the world's most extensive
and comprehensive regulatory system for Internet administration," and has
"perfected a 24-hour, real-time situational censorship mechanism." A
Chinese government delegate to the U.N. Working Group on Internet
Governance has even been quoted as hoping that China's experience can act as a
lesson for global Internet governance. However, we must be vigilant in
protecting the basic function of the Internet, lest it devolve into a mere
accretion of state-controlled sub-networks.

These issues also bear directly on the development of the rule of
law within China. Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution guarantees Chinese
citizens the freedoms of speech and of the press. Any restrictions of these
Constitutional rights should be openly legislated and transparently
applied. In reality, restrictions imposed by officials are often premised upon
ill-defined concepts of "social stability," "state security,"
and "sedition" that mask what is in fact mere intolerance of dissent.
Interestingly, it was reported yesterday that a number of senior Chinese ex-officials -
- including Mao's secretary and a former Editor-in-Chief of the
People's Daily -- have courageously issued a public letter warning that "depriving
the public of freedom of expression" will "sow the seeds of disaster" for
peaceful political transformation in China.

The international community should forge a common voice to urge the
Chinese government to cease its political censorship of the Internet. In this
regard, Secretary of State Rice's announcement yesterday that she is
establishing a new Global Internet Freedom Task Force appears to be a
constructive initiative.

Some American technology companies have been the focus of recent
public attention because of allegations that they have become complicit in
the restrictive activities of the Chinese security apparatus. Industry
representatives have volunteered to appear today, and this Committee
looks forward to hearing their perspectives.

I understand that much of the technical architecture of the Internet
is substantively agnostic. The same capacities that enable network
administrators to protect systems against destructive viruses and
allow parents to protect their children from pornography, also potentially
enable political censorship and the monitoring of dissidents. As with so
many technologies, the potential for good or ill depends largely on the
intent of the user. Thus the challenge is to maintain the promise of the
technology, while also refusing to internalize the intent of those who would use
those capacities to restrict the parameters of discussion based on its
peaceful political content.

>From this perspective, certain corporate activities appear at first
blush to be problematic. For example, it is difficult to see how altering
one's search engine to exclude politically sensitive materials is anything
other than voluntary cooperation in content-based censorship by Chinese
authorities. The same would appear to be true for the removal or
blocking of politically sensitive weblogs or other documents. The potential
conflict between this censorship and the provision of alternate news is
perhaps most acute with regard to Radio Free Asia and Voice of America. To the
extent that a company facilitates efforts by Chinese authorities to
restrict such websites, that company undercuts our government's efforts to promote
freedom of information.

On a human level, the moral hazards of locating Internet operations
inside China are most visible in the cases of Li Zhi and Shi Tao, online
writers who were sentenced to 8 and 10 years, respectively, after information
allegedly provided by one Internet service provider reportedly
enabled Chinese authorities to personally identify and punish them.

Such activities have coercive ramifications for individuals and
individual rights in China and unhelpful ramifications for advancing the rule
of law in that country. What is interesting is that the censorship practices of
American companies do not represent attempts to uphold the rhetoric
of the Chinese Constitution. Rather, they are undertaken in response to --
or in anticipation of -- a threat of commercial or criminal reprisals by
the Chinese government which contravene their own Constitution.

It is presently impossible to gauge the leverage that American
companies possess inside China because many of the limitations they observe are
self-imposed, and were apparently influenced by but not negotiated
with Chinese authorities. By preemptively altering their online products
to conform to the predilections of Chinese censors, those companies may
be diluting the liberalizing pressure created by the desire of the
Chinese people to use their original, unaltered products. To note one
example, when China temporarily shut down access to Google.com, a significant
public outcry developed which helped lead to the eventual restoration of
that search service. I worry that by providing a sanitized, censored
version of Google, that company may be allowing Chinese censors to avoid the
public pressure that otherwise would result from their restrictive
decisions. Citizens of China are willing to risk jail for freedom of expression
when certain American companies are unwilling to risk profits for the same
principle.

In sum, the Internet is an unprecedented tool for the advancement and
utilization of knowledge. American search engines and content hosts
are considered the most sophisticated in the world. All of us --
governments, industries, and concerned citizens -- should work together to ensure
that citizens of China and elsewhere are not denied access to these tools.