Google v. China in the Court of Public Opinion

cartoon from China DailyGoogle's story: 

Google operations in China began in 2006, with a censored, Chinese-language search engine.  In the words of Google, this was because:

...(T)he benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. 

On March 2009, Chinese authorities blocked access to Google's YouTube site and began denying users access to other Google services on a case-by-case basis.  Over the course of the last year, there were further attempts by the Chinese government to limit free speech on the web.  On January 12, 2010, Google announced it was considering ending its Chinese operations:

(There was) a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China...(which) resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google...This attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted...A primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists...As part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.

On March 23, 2010, tired of self-censorship imposed by the Chinese government, Google China began rerouting all searches to Hong Kong, where its service remains uncensored in simplified Chinese. However, users from mainland China are still denied access to YouTube, Blogger, and many other services.   

China's story:

Google operations in China began in 2006, with a censored, Chinese-language search engine.  In March 2009, Chinese authorities blocked access to Google's YouTube site and began denying users access to other Google services on a case-by-case basis.  In January 2010, Google announced it was considering ending its Chinese operations.  In February, Google traced multiple cyber-attacks on its servers to China.  On March 23, 2010, Google China began rerouting all searches to Hong Kong.  According to The People's Daily:

Google failed to adapt to the Chinese market. With operations becoming increasingly difficult and a gloomy outlook on the horizon, Google planned to withdraw from China. Google shouted political slogans as it withdrew, hoping to gain benefits in the world's other regions. However, not everyone can play the political card. Withdrawing from the Chinese market is obviously not an action that Google can afford to make...

Google stated clearly that it would abide by Chinese laws when it first came to the Chinese market. However, it is now unwilling to stay under the legal jurisdiction of China. Everyone can imagine the consequences of Google's move. In this information age, the Google incident may become a classic case study for how a multinational enterprise can violate another country's sovereignty. 

Where the truth lies is probably somewhere in between these two accounts: Google claims the Chinese government's demands became unbearable, and there were security issues that informed its decision to reroute searches to Hong Kong.  China claims Google struggled to make profits and failed to comply with its sovereign laws.  Although, it would be fair to contend that the truth is probably much closer to Google's account, Google knew what it was getting into.  

As appalling as censorship is from a Western standpoint, the Chinese government and Google entered into a voluntary agreement, wherein Google accepted the restrictions imposed by the Chinese government as worth the Chinese market.  After four years of operations in mainland China, Google determined that these restrictions were not worth its investment.

The People's Daily seems optimistic that Google's decision to considerably reduce operations will not affect that country's growing internet business.  However, several other companies have already followed Google's lead, including Go Daddy and Dell.  And it's still early.  China's government will eventually realize that if it wants to attract tech investment, it must ease its restrictions.

While I don't want to underestimate the role played by the profit-motive in informing Google's decision, the underlying difference here (as it usually is in disagreements the West has with China) is philosophical.  From Google:

We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China's economic reform programs and its citizens' entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.

And from the People's Daily:

With the advent of the information age, how to regulate multinational companies in the information sector has become a new challenge for all countries. For any country, network information security is as important a matter as military and economic security. Like other products, information products provided by multinational companies should also be subject to security supervision, which paves the way for effective protection of the interests of the host countries and their people.  

The solution lies in giving the Chinese the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they actually believe what they say they do; that is, information can be dangerous.  Often, activists and others in Western countries assume malicious intent on the part of the Chinese government as regards censorship, but the difference is philosophical: China believes that information can be dangerous, just as terrorists and unwieldy corporations can be dangerous.  We generally don't.  And this is the principal difference between us and the Chinese.  If we want to convince the Chinese government that opening their society to information from the West is not dangerous, we need to avoid "tough talk" and conflating the interests of a multi-national, private corporation with national security.   

As China and the West have engaged more and more on business and political levels starting with the administration of Deng Xiaoping, China has become more free.  If we truly desire the freedom of the Chinese people, the solution is more mutual trust and patience.  Hillary Clinton's January speech on internet freedom plus earlier comments, referenced by China Daily as proof that Google actions were part of a deliberate U.S. Government plot, was hardly helpful.  Those who live in countries where information is controlled by the government find it natural to believe that other governments employ the same tactic.  

This is the principal difference between American society and Chinese society that we must not forget.  Our corporations are free to engage with other nations on whatever playing fields they choose.  They must not receive support of any kind from our government.  Google's problems are not America's problems.  They are Google's problems.  The Obama Administration would be wise to keep Google off the table in any warming of ties it pursues with the Chinese government.  It has always been a friendly engagement with China that makes Western ideas of freedom of information so attractive to the Chinese people.