SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
China Quarterly
Aug 30th, 2017 by Gao

Ian Johnson: Cambridge University Press Removes Academic Articles on Chinese Site / 迫于审查压力,剑桥大学出版社在华删除敏感内容 (New York Times)

One of the world’s oldest and most respected publishing houses, Cambridge University Press, has bowed to pressure from Beijing and removed sensitive content on its site in China.

Echo Huang: Forced to comply or shut down, Cambridge University Press’s China Quarterly removes 300 articles in China (Quartz)
Cambridge University Press statement regarding content in The China Quarterly (Cambridge University Press)

We can confirm that we received an instruction from a Chinese import agency to block individual articles from The China Quarterly within China. We complied with this initial request to remove individual articles, to ensure that other academic and educational materials we publish remain available to researchers and educators in this market.
We are aware that other publishers have had entire collections of content blocked in China until they have enabled the import agencies to block access to individual articles. We do not, and will not, proactively censor our content and will only consider blocking individual items (when requested to do so) when the wider availability of content is at risk.

Alex Linder: Cambridge University Press bows to Chinese censors, removes 300 ‚politically sensitive‘ articles (Shanghaiist)

On Friday, the CUP said that more than 300 articles had been scrubbed from the China Quarterly’s Chinese website following a request from Chinese censors, which threatened to have its site shut down. Apparently, the articles had been chosen for deletion not through a careful reading and examination of the text, but by quick searches for certain naughty words.

Liste der entfernten Artikel: www.cambridge.org/… (PDF, Cambridge University Press)
Tim Pringle: Message from the editor, The China Quarterly (PDF, Cambridge University Press)

The China Quarterly wishes to express its deep concern and disappointment that over 300 articles
and reviews published in the journal have been censored by a Chinese import agency. We note too
that this restriction of academic freedom is not an isolated move but an extension of policies that
have narrowed the space for public engagement and discussion across Chinese society.

Tim Pringle: China’s bid to block my journal’s articles is a new attack on academic freedom (Guardian)

Cambridge University Press was asked to suppress articles in China Quarterly. It has now resisted, but it is a worrying development

The China Quarterly follow-up statement (Cambridge University Press)

Following a clear order from its Chinese importer, Cambridge University Press reluctantly took the decision to block, within China, 315 articles in The China Quarterly. This decision was taken as a temporary measure pending discussion with the academic leadership of the University of Cambridge, and pending a scheduled meeting with the Chinese importer in Beijing.
The academic leadership of the University has now reviewed this action in advance of the meeting in China later this week. Academic freedom is the overriding principle on which the University of Cambridge is based. Therefore, while this temporary decision was taken in order to protect short-term access in China to the vast majority of the Press’s journal articles, the University’s academic leadership and the Press have agreed to reinstate the blocked content, with immediate effect, so as to uphold the principle of academic freedom on which the University’s work is founded.

Cambridge University Press battles censorship in China (Economist)

This is not the only recent case. Censors have demanded the removal of about 100 articles in the Journal of Asian Studies, also published by CUP. The Communist Party used to allow scholars a modest latitude in their fields of research, permitting, for example, access to foreign academic publications that would be banned from general circulation. But in March the customs authorities tightened rules on importing books. Chinese academics complain that risk-averse librarians will not now order even innocuous scholarly works for fear of offending the customs service.

Cambridge University Press Refuses to Comply With Second Chinese Takedown Request (Radio Free Asia)

Chinese censors have made another request to a top academic journal published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) for the removal of online content from a website hosted in China, the Association for Asian Studies said in a statement.
CUP has refused the request from the State Administration of Press and Publications, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT), which requested the removal of some 100 articles from the website of the Journal of Asian Studies.
The Association for Asian Studies (AAS) said the request was similar to one made by Chinese authorities to CUP, prompting the publishing house to take down some 300 articles from the China website of the China Quarterly academic journal last week.

China Quarterly debate a matter of principle (Global Times)

As the readership of the China Quarterly is limited, there will be little impact over the CUP withdrawing some articles. The Western media, which must have other things to pay attention to, seems more sensitive than some relevant Chinese authorities.
China has a number of laws and regulations concerning cyber security. The China Quarterly is published overseas. There is no overlap between the two sides. The CUP can enjoy academic freedom under British law. But overseas media reports that it set up a server in China hoping to explore the Chinese market, which has to abide by the Chinese law. As long as the Chinese request was made in accordance with the law, there is no reason to be critical.
China has blocked some information on foreign websites that it deems harmful to Chinese society. This is for the sake of China’s security and is within the scope of China’s sovereignty. China is also trying to strike a balance between opening itself up and preventing harmful external information from penetrating into Chinese society, to realize steady and sustainable progress.
Western institutions have the freedom to choose. If they don’t like the Chinese way, they can stop engaging with us. If they think China’s Internet market is so important that they can’t miss out, they need to respect Chinese law and adapt to the Chinese way. Now it seems that some Western institutions would like to make adjustments, while some forces are unhappy about it.

AFP: At Beijing book fair, publishers admit to self-censorship to keep texts on Chinese market (South China Morning Post)

Tiananmen, Tibet and Taiwan are off limits for companies wanting to sell their books in China, publisher says

James A. Millward: Open Letter to Cambridge University Press about its censorship of the China Quarterly (Medium)

Cambridge University Press’s decision to censor the journal China Quarterly as it is viewed online in China is a craven, shameful and destructive concession to the PRC’s growing censorship regime. It is also needless.

Christopher Balding: Petition Cambridge University Press Not to Censor China Articles (Change.org)

As academics and China focused academics, we are disturbed by the request by the Chinese government for Cambridge University Press to censor articles from the China Quarterly. As academics, we believe in the free and open exchange of ideas and information on all topics not just those we agree with. It is disturbing to academics and universities world wide that China is attempting to export its censorship on topics that do not fit its preferred narrative.
We call upon Cambridge University Press to refuse the censorship request not just for the China Quarterly but on any other topics, journals or publication that have been requested by the Chinese government.
If Cambridge University Press acquiesces to the demands of the Chinese government, we as academics and universities reserve the right to pursue other actions including boycotts of Cambridge University Press and related journals.

Maev Kennedy, Tom Phillips: Cambridge University Press backs down over China censorship (Guardian)

Publisher will reinstate articles to which it blocked online access in China in the face of international protests by academics

Simon Denyer: In reversal, Cambridge University Press restores articles after China censorship row (Washington Post)

Cambridge University Press reversed course Monday after facing a major backlash from academics over its decision to bow to Chinese government demands to censor an important academic journal.

Joseph Hincks: A Top Publisher Bowed to China’s Censors. Then it Bowed to Outraged Academics (Time)

Margaret Lewis, Andrew J. Nathan, Pamela Kyle Crossley, Edward Friedman, Yifu Dong, Joseph W. Esherick: Should Publications Compromise to Remain in China? (China File)

Freedom of expression may have won this battle against state censorship, but if state interference continues what compromises is it permissable for academic institutions and publications to make to stay inside China?

Jonathan Sullivan: Censorship and China Studies (China Policy Institute)

CUP’s decision to accede to the demands is a misguided, if understandable, economic decision that does harm to the Press’ reputation and integrity (whether there is any integrity in the business of academic publishing is another story).

In diesem Zusammenhang siehe auch:
中华人民共和国网络安全法(全国人民代表大会)
Inoffizielle Übersetzung ins Englische: 2016 Cybersecurity Law (China Law Translate)

Article 1: This law is formulated so as to ensure network security, to safeguard cyberspace sovereignty, national security and the societal public interest, to protect the lawful rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and to promote the healthy development of economic and social informatization.
Article 2: This law applies with respect to the construction, operation, maintenance and usage of networks, as well as network security supervision and management within the mainland territory of the People’s Republic of China.

People’s Republic of China Cybersecurity Law: A Preliminary Overview for Western Companies (National Law Review)

The PRC Cybersecurity Law maintains the trend from elective regimes toward mandatory cybersecurity standards and requirements. As seen in the EU, with the recently adopted General Data Protection Regulation framework, and in the US, with proposed federal regulations of financial institutions to address the risk of “cyber contagion,” global actors are flexing their regulatory and national security powers to address the threat of cyber-attacks in an increasingly interconnected world.

Xi Jinping gegen Liu Yunshan? | Qi Benyu | Wirtschaftskrieg | Chang Ping
Apr 24th, 2016 by Gao

雷斯:千人之诺诺,不如一士之谔谔(《中国纪检监察报》 – immer noch on-line!)| Übersetzung von Eleanor Goodman: A Thousand Yes-Men Cannot Equal One Honest Advisor (ChinaFile)

一些领导干部因违纪违法受到处罚,几乎都谈到班子内部监督不够,说没人提醒我,如果当年有人咬咬耳朵,也不至于犯这么大的罪。小问题没人提醒,大问题无人批评,以致酿成大错,正所谓“千人之诺诺,不如一士之谔谔”啊!
——习近平总书记在参加河北省委常委班子专题民主生活会时的讲话

  “千人之诺诺,不如一士之谔谔”,见于《史记·商君列传》,是战国策士赵良对秦相商鞅的谏言。赵良要投入商鞅帐下,提出了一个前提条件:“终日正言而无诛”,换句话说,就是整天说真话但不被打击报复。赵良还举了前代的两个典型例子,周武王身边不乏谔谔之士,最后能够成就大业;殷纣王周围都是趋炎附势之徒,最后亡国亡身。商鞅欣然接受了这个条件,并且进一步引申出“貌言华也,至言实也,苦言药也,甘言疾也”的道理。不过,后世对此理解最透彻的,就是唐太宗李世民和魏徵了。

忠诚党员促习近平辞职的公开信 | Loyal Party Members Urge Xi’s Resignation(无界新闻~China Digital Times)
Peter Lee: Battle between Xi Jinping and propaganda chief plays out in Chinese media (Asia Times)

If my understanding of the current censorship crackdown in PRC is correct, western commentators focused on the deepening of Xi Jinping’s control over the media may have missed the point somewhat. It appears likely that Xi Jinping is primarily concerned with neutralizing control of a rival, Liu Yunshan, over the PRC propaganda apparatus, and Xi’s heightened control over media messaging is a consequence, rather than cause, of the current uproar.
To recap, there have been three relatively high-profile censorship kerfuffles involving PRC media in the last few weeks: the “resignation letter” posted on an obscure Xinjiang website; the higher profile Caixin report/spiking/report of spiking concerning an NPC delegate’s complaints concerning heavy-handed government messaging; and the big one, the so called “Yes Man” commentary posted on the website of the anti-corruption “Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.” …
The resignation letter is probably a piece of psyops, possibly abetted by the US. Nobody believes that the website’s managers knowingly put this thing up, it doesn’t read write like a genuine cadre whinge, and a focus of the investigation has been interrogation of the site’s technical personnel…
The most interesting item on the current agenda is the “Yes Man” piece. It is one of those densely argued historical analogy pieces that is trotted out in CCP-land when politics is about to get very, very serious. The essay was posted on March 1 and is clearly a response to the campaign against billionaire gadfly Ren Zhiqiang, whose Weibo account got axed after he made some pointed criticisms of restrictions on free speech…
The fact that this piece has been posted on the CCDI website has elicited a lot of excited commentary, since the head of the CCDI, Wang Qishan, is the standard bearer of Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption drive and is seen as one of Xi’s key assets and supporters…
Observers should find even more puzzling that, over three weeks after this apparently incendiary piece was posted on the CCDC website, it is still there.
Let me repeat. It. Is. Still. There.
Rather odd treatment for a piece that is supposedly a stinging rebuke to Xi Jinping…

Emily Rauhala, Xu Yangjingjing: Chinese website publishes, then pulls, explosive letter calling for President Xi’s resignation (Washington Post)

Andrew J. Nathan, Rana Mitter, Dominic Meagher, Pamela Kyle Crossley, Daniel Leese, Kristin Shi-Kupfer: Cracks in Xi Jinping’s Fortress? (ChinaFile)

Two remarkable documents emerged from China last week: the first is the essay “A Thousand Yes-Men Cannot Equal One Honest Advisor”—available here in Chinese and translated here into English—which appeared on the website of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. The second is an open letter calling for Xi Jinping’s resignation, penned by a group describing themselves as “loyal Party members.” What, if anything, do these documents suggest about the stability of Xi’s regime?

Michael Schoenhals: Qi Benyu, last surviving member of Central Cultural Revolution Group goes to see Karl Marx (H-NET)

Qi Benyu (戚本禹), the last surviving member of the Central Cultural Revolution Group, passed away this morning, 20 April 2016. Qi hailed from Weihai in Shandong province, but had been born in Shanghai in 1931. He joined the CCP in 1949. … To historians, what has to count as one of the most interesting pieces penned by Qi is a report《关于“调查研究”的调查》dating from 12 May 1961. It amounted to a highly critical description of how intermediate and lower-level officials were supposedly perverting the Maoist policy of ”investigation and research.”

Alastair Crooke: The ‘Hybrid War’ of Economic Sanctions (Consortium News)

U.S. politicians love the “silver bullet” of economic sanctions to punish foreign adversaries, but the weapon’s overuse is driving China and Russia to develop countermeasures.

Edward Wong: Chinese Writer in Germany Says 3 Siblings Are Detained Over Xi Letter | 旅德作家长平称家人因公开信事件被扣押 (New York Times)

A liberal Chinese writer living in Germany has said security officers in China detained three members of his family in connection with a mysterious online letter that denounced the iron-fisted rule of President Xi Jinping.

Chang Ping: Targeting Beyond China | 我为什么拒绝与中国政府交易 (New York Times)

On March 27, Chinese police crashed my father’s 70th birthday party in China’s southwestern Sichuan Province. They accused my family of causing a forest fire the day before by lighting incense and burning paper as part of the annual tomb- sweeping festival to honor deceased relatives. Three of my siblings were summoned to the police station and found out quickly that they were not being detained over an arson charge.
As an exiled Chinese journalist living in Germany, I had written an article in mid-March for Deutsche Welle criticizing the Chinese government for “secretly kidnapping” a journalist, Jia Jia, in connection with a widely distributed open letter calling for the resignation of President Xi Jinping.

Sozialversicherungssystem | Mao Zedong | Long Baorong | Propaganda
Feb 14th, 2015 by Gao

China’s social security system (China Labour Bulletin)

The problems in China’s social security system can be traced back to two key events: The break-up of the state-run economy, which had provided urban workers with an “iron rice bowl” (employment, housing, healthcare and pension), and the introduction of the one-child policy in the 1980s, which meant that parents could no longer rely on a large extended family to look after them in their old age. In other words, as the economy developed and liberalized in the 1990s and 2000s, both the state and social structures that had supported workers in their old age, ill-health and during times of economic hardship gradually vanished, leaving a huge vacuum to fill.
The Chinese government sought to create a new social security system based on individual employment contracts that would make employers, rather than the state, primarily responsible for contributions to pensions, unemployment, medical, work-related injury and maternity insurance. In addition, the government established a housing fund designed to help employees, who no longer had housing provided for them, buy their own home…
After China embarked on its much vaunted economic reform and development program, the government gradually abdicated its authority in labour relations to business interests. As the private sector expanded, employers could unilaterally and arbitrarily determine the pay and working conditions of their employees, keeping wages low and benefits largely non-existent. The national government sought to protect the interests of workers by implementing legislation, such as the 1994 Labour Law and 2008 Labour Contract Law, however local governments either could not or would not enforce the law in the workplace.
Under these circumstances, creating a system where employers are primarily responsible for their employees’ social security was doomed to failure. Employers could often simply ignore their legal obligations and continue with business as usual, often with official connivance…
The failure of the Chinese government to enforce the law and create a social security system that covers everyone has not only disadvantaged China’s workers, it has severely hampered the government’s own ability to push ahead with and accomplish other important policy goals.

Rebecca E. Karl, Michael Schoenhals, Andrew J. Nathan, Richard Bernstein, Ho-Fung Hung, Sebastian Heilmann: Is Mao Still Dead? (ChinaFile)

It has long been standard operating procedure for China’s leaders to pay tribute to Mao. Even as the People’s Republic he wrought has embraced capitalist behavior with ever more heated ardor, the party he founded has remained firmly in power and his portrait has stared out over Tiananmen Square toward the squat building where his body reposes peacefully at the heart of a country he would scarcely recognize. But since Xi Jinping’s arrival at the helm, Mao’s words have seemed to reverberate more loudly. From the rejection of liberalism that colors the internal Party directive known as Document 9, to Education Minister Yuan Guiren’s recent speech demanding an “ideological campaign,” to Xi’s own speeches which seem to reference Mao and Marx far more often than his predecessors’, Chinese politics under Xi seem to have taken a hard ideological turn. How significant is this phenomenon and what does it mean? Is Mao still dead?

Edward Wong: China Sentences 27 Linked to Official Who Reported Graft (New York Times, auch via Google News)

A court in southern China has sentenced to prison 27 family members and supporters of a former official, now dead, who had sought to expose local corruption, a lawyer for one of them said Thursday.
The large number of people sentenced in a single trial for what their advocates have said were political rather than criminal activities was unusual. All were members of the Miao ethnic group, more commonly known in the West as the Hmong.
The former official, Long Baorong, of Fenghuang County in Hunan Province, was detained by Communist Party investigators in 2010 after he raised questions about the local government. In 2011, a court sentenced him to four or five years in prison for fraud and embezzlement, but he was unexpectedly released in 2012. He died shortly afterward, according to the lawyer, Ma Gangquan.

Luisetta Mudie: China Jails Ethnic Miao Leader’s Relatives, Supporters For ‚Triad‘ Activities (Radio Free Asia)

《网信精神》 (YouTube)

网络强国 网在哪光荣梦想在哪
网络强国 从遥远的宇宙到思念的家
网络强国 告诉世界中国梦在崛起大中华
网络强国 一个我在世界代表着国家

Josh Chin, Chun Han Wong: China’s Internet Censors Now Have Their Own Theme Song, And It Is Glorious (Wall Street Journal)
Und im wilden Nordwesten:
新疆喀什市《小苹果》广场舞大赛第一季全记录(天山网)
Rachel Lu: ‘De-radicalizing’ Xinjiang, One Bad Pop Song at a Time (Foreign Policy)

SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
»  Host:Blogsport   »  Code:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa