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.

Debatte über den Yue-Yuen-Streik
Apr 29th, 2014 by Gao

Michael bzw. Cathy hat diesen Artikel geschickt:
Ashok Kumar: 5 reasons the strike in China is terrifying! (to transnational capitalism) (Communists in situ, 25. April 2014)

1. It’s the largest strike in modern China…
2. Chinese state repression is tempered…
3. It’s too big to cut-and-run…
4. The price of consumer durables is rising…
5. It’s gone global…

Es gibt eine Debatte über Erfolg oder Misserfolg des Streikes bei Yue Yuen (Yùyuán 裕元). Daniel hat auf dieses Interview hingewiesen:
与裕元一位老工人的深度访谈 (公平社,27. April 2014)

小邱:这次罢工失败的原因是什么?这次罢工之后会不会裁一批工人?
裕友:主要原因是:1.政府强力打压,甚至警察封住厂门不让员工出来,到车间强迫工人复工。2.部分工人受前述情况影响,产生悲观、畏惧和失败情绪,觉得反正搞不赢了,捞了230元,见好就收,无奈复工。
裁人很难说。我们25日才正式复工,台湾佬就宣布以后控制加班,周末只有确实很急的工作才可以报加班。果然不出所料,台湾佬要秋后算帐了。控制加班明显是秋后算账。加班成了他们手里的一根骨头。
小邱:今天(26日)复工了,这次“12天的休假”结束了,大家是什么心情?复工后又有什么情况?经过大罢工后,工人有什么新的想法?
裕友:大家虽然复工了,但心里都憋着一股怨气。今天大家心里都特别难受,感到很屈辱。表面看来,罢工已平息,但矛盾仍然存在,问题没解决,员工怨气很大。尤其是对政府强势介入打压员工非常不满。所有人都感觉到愤怒,尤其是被强迫劳动!
听说老三厂25日有些人复工,下班后听说是有强迫复工的干部被打了,组长级别以上的干部下班都有警察护送。26日警察就到各厂找积极分子问话,据我所知,G3模具厂有个钳工就被问话了,并且在问话记录上按了手印,还要了他的QQ号。YY3模具厂有三个积极分子被叫到写字楼问话,被警告,鞋厂很多员工被叫到写字楼问话,被警告。(小邱:你不算积极分子吧?)很可惜,我还算不上。罢工期间我曾在网上指责警察强迫员工复工,不晓得会不会找我?
这次罢工只是在强势打压下被迫复工的,问题依然没得到解决。本来只是单纯的劳资纠纷,却由于政府的强势打压,导致更多人对政府和资方的不满。可说,这次罢工事件是三败俱伤,员工被打压,资方需付出几十亿的补偿和罚款/滞纳金,政府的威信下降。
小邱:但是你想过没有,这次罢工也使许多工人觉醒。之前那种对官方包括总工会、甚至对警察的幻想,现在都破灭了,这种觉悟会让下次斗争更有力量,至少思想上不再那么软弱。
裕友:是的。这次罢工的前期,员工还企望政府协调,当工会介入后镇压加剧,员工看清了政府的真正面目,他们就是资方的打手和走狗。
可以说,只是明火被扑灭了,仍有暗藏的火种,下次遇到诱因,可能会更加爆发!而且经过这次的洗礼,下次的罢工,肯定会更有组织性和战斗力!

Heiko hingegen hat diese Links geschickt:
Stephanie Won, Ben Livesey, John Lear: Yue Yuen Says 80% of Workers Return After Plant Strike (Bloomberg, 25. April 2014)
China Confirms Strike-Struck Shoemaker Yue Yuen Owes Social Benefits (Wall Street Journal, 24./27. April 2014)
Dongguan union releases response to Yue Yuen workers’ demands (China Labor Watch, 24. April 2014)

Rolf wies darauf hin, dass das Arbeitsministerium auf Seiten der Arbeiter interveniert hat:
Jill Geoghegan: Strike ends at Adidas and Nike supplier in China (Drapers, 29. April 2014)

Weitere Artikel:
Felix Lee: Streiks in chinesischer Turnschuhfabrik (Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 18. April 2014)
王传涛:“裕元鞋厂大罢工”是工人维权意识的苏醒 (人民日报海外版~劳工互助网, 19. April 2014)
Felix Lee: „Sie betrügen uns alle zusammen“ (Südwest Presse [sic], 23. April 2014)
Adidas shifts orders from striking Yue Yuen factory in Dongguan (Global Times, 24. April 2014)
广东省总工会主席黄业斌:裕元鞋厂“目前已有90%的员工复工” (劳工互助网, 24. April 2014)
Felix Lee: China hat ein riesiges Rentenproblem (Zeit, 25. April 2014)
Stefan Sauer: Grobes Foul von Adidas (Frankfurter Rundschau, 25. April 2014)
AFP: Huge China strike peters out as workers cite intimidation (Breitbart, 28. April 2014)
William Hurst: Chinese factory strike portends global workplace changes (AlJazeera, 28. April 2014)
Jonathan Sullivan, Samantha Hoffman: China can’t ignore workers‘ well-being if it wants to avert strikes (South China Morning Post, 28./29. April 2014)
Markus Ackeret: Streik-Ende unter dem Druck des Staates (Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 29. April 2014)
AFP: Huge China strike peters out as workers cite intimidation (NDTV, 28. April 2014)
Yue Yuen Workers Won’t Cry (China Labour Net, 28. April 2014)

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