Idle Hands Make for Tweeting Fingers

I can’t help but make the connection between Chinese Internet and a Fisher Price toolkit. Those bright shiny hammers and screwdrivers might look like the real deal, but the heavily censored Chinese Internet, just like the plastic choke-proof toys, won’t ever be able to build the framework of a free society.

In fact, China’s censorship of Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter, along with service interruptions for Gmail is reminiscent of many a fallen repressive Middle East regime. Aimed at crushing the public’s ability to organize protests and express dissent, China’s web-censoring arm – affectionately dubbed the Great Firewall – has garnered massive foreign media attention. But should we expect the Chinese citizenry to overthrow the Beijing government in the coming months?

Probably not.

Although the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, and China equally despise dissent, the Middle East differs from China in a key area: money. While the Middle East (along with most of the world) has suffered from the Great Recession, China’s economy has continued to grow at incredible rates. Protestors in Tunisia and Egypt weren’t just angry about civil-rights violations; many could no longer tolerate living in poverty. It’s this key difference that will make any sort of widespread revolt in China unlikely.

I don’t mean to suggest the Chinese population will give up free speech entirely for the ability to buy cups of Starbucks coffee and Nike shoes. But because China is economically stable and continuing to grow, the Chinese people will tolerate more censorship than their counterparts in the Middle East.

Sounds bitter or dismal? Maybe. But let’s take a step back and see that money has been at the center of many previous rebellions. America’s revolution started because our founding fathers refused to pay some taxes. The South seceded out of fear of losing the free labor of slavery. The US involvement in the Middle East in recent decades has stemmed from our desire to secure resources.

Good or bad, in the world in which we live, cash is king. And Beijing knows. Beijing, by focusing on economic progress and leading China’s workforce towards economic advancement, has sidestepped civil rights in favor of ‘looking to the future.’ The government believes that so long as the population continues to improve its economic position, the masses are unlikely to revolt.

In my last op-ed, I talked about the nearsightedness of US politicians in their poor handling of current budget deficits. Although detrimental to the long-term health of the US economy, Beijing doesn’t exhibit this type of economic myopia. However by focusing solely on economic development, Beijing demonstrates unprecedented levels of tunnel vision. But for their current goals, the strategy works. Dissent and opposition extend decision-making processes and prevent unilateral actions. However ignoring civil rights and denying people the ability to speak freely will likely bring about harm for China in the future. The question remains about what type of harm China’s government can expect and when they can expect it.

As it stands, the most visible opposition for China’s stringent Internet censorship programs come from abroad (with Chinese citizens unable to vocalize their opinions, this shouldn’t come as a surprise). In a recent speech, Hillary Clinton expressed US’s official view on internet censorship: “The United States continues to help people in oppressive Internet environments get around filters, stay one step ahead of the censors, the hackers and the thugs who beat them up or imprison them for what they say online.” This clear attack on China’s current practices led a Chinese spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu to declare that China opposes “other countries using Internet freedom as a pretext for interfering in others’ internal affairs.”

China calmly appears to refuse to listen to foreign governments. And I’m doubtful that’s going to change anytime soon. With ever increasing wealth and political clout, China is poised to do as it pleases (for the time being) without regard to internal or foreign dissent.