Perfidious Albion

Cambridge University Press faces backlash after bowing to China censorship pressure
By Simon Denyer

A student walks through the quadrangle of King's College, Cambridge, Nov. 24, 2005. 

BEIJING — Cambridge University Press faces a major backlash from academics after bowing to Chinese government demands to censor an important academic journal.
CUP announced Friday it had removed 300 articles and book reviews from a version of the “China Quarterly” website available in China at the request of the government.
The articles touched on topics deemed sensitive to the Communist Party, including the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989, policies towards Tibetan and Uighur ethnic minorities, Taiwan and the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution.
The articles would still be available on a version of China Quarterly accessible outside China.
The demand to remove the articles came from China’s General Administration of Press and Publication, which warned that if they were not removed the entire website would be made unavailable in China.
But academics around the world have accused CUP of selling out and becoming complicit in censoring Chinese academic debate and history.
In an open letter published on Medium.com, James A. Millward, a professor of history at Georgetown University called the decision “a craven, shameful and destructive concession” to the People’s Republic of China’s growing censorship regime.
Millward said the decision overruled the peer-review process and the views of editors about what should be in the journal and was a “clear violation of academic independence inside and outside China.”
He added it was akin to the New York Times or the Economist publishing versions of their papers inside China omitting content deemed offensive to the Party. 

“And as my colleagues Greg Distelhorst and Jessica Chen Weiss have written, ‘the censored history of China will literally bear the seal of Cambridge University.’”
“It is noteworthy that the topics and peoples CUP has so blithely chosen to censor comprise mainly minorities and the politically disadvantaged. Would you censor content about Black Lives Matter, Mexican immigrants or Muslims in your American publication list if Trump asked you to do to?,” he asked.
In a tweet, James Leibold, an associate professor at Melbourne’s La Trobe University, whose scholarship about the Xinjiang region was among the censored articles, called the decision “a shameful act."
And a petition is now circulating among academics warning that Cambridge University Press could face a boycott if it continues to acquiesce to the Chinese government’s demands.
“It is disturbing to academics and universities worldwide that China is attempting to export its censorship on topics that do not fit its preferred narrative,” Christopher Balding, an associate professor at Peking University HSBC School of Business in Shenzhen, China, the petition’s originator, wrote.
“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.”
The petition requests that only academics and people working in higher education sign, and give their affiliation. 

By Monday afternoon in China it had attracted 290 signatures on change.org although it could not be immediately established how many signatories were academics.
In a statement, CUP said it has complied with the initial request “to ensure that other academic and educational materials we publish remain available to researchers and educators in this market.”
It added it had planned meetings “to discuss our position with the relevant agencies” at the Beijing Book Fair this week.

Experts said the decision was part of a broader crackdown on free expression in China under Xi Jinping that has intensified this year as the Communist Party becomes more confident and less inclined to compromise.

In the past, China's system of censorship, nicknamed the Great Firewall of China, has concentrated mainly on Chinese-language material, and has been less preoccupied with blocking English-language material, which is accessed only by a narrow elite. 

But that may now be changing.
“The China Quarterly is very reputable within academic circles, and it does not promote the "positive" energy that China wants to see,” said Qiao Mu, a former professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University who was demoted and ultimately left the university after criticizing the government. 

“Instead, it touches on historical reflection, talks about Cultural Revolution and other errors that China has made in the past. These are things that China does not like and does not want to be discussed.”
Qiao said the decision would have a negative effect on already limited academic freedom in China.

“For Chinese academics, the effect is mainly psychological,” he said. 

“They will think more when doing research and impose stricter self-censorship.”
Internet companies have also faced similar dilemmas: Google chose to withdraw from China rather than submit to censorship, and has been displaced here by a censored Chinese search engine, Baidu.com. 

But LinkedIn has submitted to censorship and continues to operate here. 

Apple recently complied with a demand from the Chinese government to remove many VPN (virtual private network) applications that netizens use to access blocked websites, from its App Store in China.
Millward argued that Cambridge as a whole has more power than it perhaps realized in a battle of wills with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
“China is not going to ban everything branded ‘Cambridge’ from the Chinese realm, because to do so would turn this into a big, public issue, and that is precisely what the authorities hope to avoid,” he wrote.
“To do so would, moreover, pit the CCP against a household name that every Chinese person who knows anything about education reveres as one of the world’s oldest and best universities. And Chinese, probably more than anyone else, revere universities, especially name-brand ones.
Cambridge University Press has made available a complete list of the censored articles here.

Academic Prostitution

Cambridge University Press faces boycott over China censorship

By Tom Phillips in Beijing

Cambridge University Press was urged to refuse censorship requests for not only its China Quarterly journal but also any other topics or publications. 

Cambridge University Press must reject China’s “disturbing” censorship demands or face a potential boycott of its publications, academics have warned.
In a petition published on Monday, academics from around the world denounced China’s attempts to “export its censorship on topics that do not fit its preferred narrative”.
The appeal came after it emerged that Cambridge University Press (CUP), the world’s oldest publishing house, had complied with a Chinese instruction to block online access to more than 300 politically sensitive articles from its highly respected China Quarterly journal. 

The blacklisted articles covered topics including Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, the Tiananmen massacre and the cult of personality some claim is emerging around Xi Jinping.
The petition attacked CUP’s move and urged it “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,” it added.
The author of the petition, Peking University economics professor Christopher Balding, said he hoped it would serve as an alert to how China had dramatically stepped up its efforts to stifle free thinking since Xi became its top leader in 2012and began a severe crackdown on academia and civil society. 

“I think this is an increasing problem that really needs to be addressed much more forcefully by the international academic community,” he said.
Balding complained that while it was fashionable for academics and publishers to attack US president Donald Trump, they were far more cautious about criticising Xi’s authoritarian regime for fear of reprisals. 

“Standing up to the Chinese government involves definite costs. It is not an easy thing to do. There will be potentially punitive measures taken against you. But if it is a principle that is right in the UK and if it is right in the US, then it should also be right in China. And there will be times when you have to accept costs associated with principles.”
Another signatory, Griffith University anthropologist David Schak, said he believed Cambridge University Press had sullied its centuries-old reputation by bowing to China’s demands. 

“Cambridge seems to be the one who is now censoring rather than China, even though they are doing it at the request of China ... They have soiled their copy book.”
Schak added: “It makes you wonder what they are in the business of doing ... I thought university presses were there to publish good research.”
“They are acceding to China whereas [they should have said]: ‘What you do, we can’t stop you from doing that but we are not going to do that ourselves.’ You put the onus entirely back on the Chinese government rather than cooperating with them.”

Suzanne Pepper, a Hong Kong-based writer whose piece on politics in the former colony was among the blocked China Quarterly articles, said she expected censorship from China’s rulers but not from CUP. 

“It makes them complicit, accomplices in the fine art of censorship, which we are all supposed to deplore,” she said.
Chinese intellectuals also lamented the attempt to limit their access to foreign research. 

“This whole case makes me feel extremely disappointed,” Li Jingrui, a Chinese novelist, wrote on Weibo, China’s answer to Twitter. 

In an oblique reference to China’s one-party state, she added: “I’m left with the feeling that there is absolutely no escape since every single breath on Earth belongs to the king.”

India boycotts China's global trade jamboree

by Rishi Iyengar

There's a chill in the air between China and its fastest growing regional rival.
Representatives from dozens of countries -- including 30 heads of state -- gathered in Beijing on Sunday for a lavish summit to discuss China's trillion-dollar global trade and investment initiative, known as One Belt, One Road.
India, however, was conspicuous by its absence.
The South Asian nation -- the world's fastest growing major economy and Asia's third biggest -- chose not to attend the gathering, where China laid out its plan to connect nearly 70 countries through a series of global trade pacts, inspired by the ancient Silk Road trading route.
India's main objection is the partnership China is developing with Pakistan. 

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a key component of One Belt, One Road -- passes through the disputed region of Kashmir, which both India and Pakistan claim in its entirety.
"No country can accept a project that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity," India's foreign ministry said in a statement Saturday.
The foreign ministry also cited concerns about the "unsustainable debt burden" China's partner countries along the route would have to bear.
"We have been urging China to engage in a meaningful dialogue," the Indian statement said. 

"We are awaiting a positive response from the Chinese side."
In an opinion piece published Sunday, China's state-run Global Times said it was "regrettable" that India had decided to boycott the event but the project would go ahead, with or without New Delhi's support.
It pointed out that China and Pakistan signed new deals worth $500 million over the weekend, while Nepal -- sandwiched between India and China -- has also formally joined the Belt and Road initiative.
Despite staying away from the Beijing showcase, India is involved in the Belt and Road initiative.
Outside China, it is the largest stakeholder in the Beijing-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and a founding member of the New Development Bank. 

Both are major funding sources for the new trade route.
It also participates directly via an agreement called the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar economic corridor.
"It wasn't a very wise decision to boycott [the forum]," said Swaran Singh, an expert on India-China relations at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Singh described the quarrel over Pakistan as "a fuss" that would only benefit Beijing and Islamabad.
"I'm not saying the prime minister should have gone, but we are stakeholders, we are partners... so we should have had some presence," he added.
India has some cards to play. 

India's booming economy and its increasingly affluent middle class of more than 300 million people provide it with growing regional clout.
"Both in terms of political endorsement and economic viability, India [attending the event] would have really benefited the Chinese," Singh said. 

"That's why they tried really hard to get us on board."
Before this weekend's summit, China's Ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui tried to reassure New Delhi that the initiative was only about economics. 

Beijing would not get involved in disputes India and Pakistan, he said.
The dispute is unlikely to hamper the two countries' existing economic cooperation. 

China is India's largest trading partner, and some of the biggest Chinese firms including Alibaba, Xiaomi and Oppo have a huge presence in the country -- either as investors or through their own operations.
For now, China is playing it cool when it comes to India's role in the Belt and Road initiative.
"The role is still available if India changes its mind," the Global Times concluded, "but it may only be a small role if it is left too late."

Was that doctor dragged off the United Airlines flight because he was Asian? Many in China think so.

By Simon Denyer 

United Airlines said a man wouldn’t give up his spot on an overbooked flight. According to witnesses, he was pulled screaming from his seat by security and back to the terminal at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. 

BEIJING — News that a passenger was forcibly dragged off a United Airlines plane has gone viral all over the world, but in China the outrage has been fueled by one uncomfortable fact: The doctor who was pulled off the plane, first screaming and then bleeding, appeared to be of Asian origin and was overheard complaining that this might have been a factor in his treatment.
“He said, more or less, ‘I’m being selected because I’m Chinese,’” fellow passenger Tyler Bridges was quoted as saying by The Washington Post.
That quote, translated into Chinese, was widely circulated on social media here. (Another witness on the plane said the man was originally from Vietnam, according to the BBC.)
By late afternoon on Tuesday, the topic had attracted 160 million readers on Sina Weibo, China’s version of Twitter, and 97,000 comments. 

Petitions to boycott United Airlines were also going viral on WeChat, a popular messaging service.
“United Airlines just randomly chose an Asian? It’s blatant racial discrimination,” a user called @Rhando_hiclarie wrote in a typical post. 

“UA is super rubbish.”
The airline first offered compensation to passengers who volunteered to give up their seats, but no one came forward. 

Passengers were then reportedly told by a manager that a computer would select four people to get off.
Later, however, Charlie Hobart, a United spokesman, would not say whether the bumped passengers were chosen by a computer, an employee or some combination of the two, according to the New York Times.
Some users pointed out the irony of United’s motto: “Fly the friendly skies,” but many saw the incident as an example of American hypocrisy, and what one user called “a perfect illustration” of human rights in the United States.
“I am going to tell you a joke: ‘America is the country with the best human rights in the World,’” one user called @Youthliteratureandart wrote in a post that attracted more than 4,000 likes.
“Americans often say they have democracy and human rights, but they can’t even respect people who have different skin colors,” @Nanchigirl wrote.
“Americans are so barbarous,” @_tua wrote. 

“Overbooking is the airline company’s own problem. This passenger didn’t break the law. The security guy beat him until his face is covered in blood, is this the so-called American democratic society?”
Chinese media drew attention to an online petition entitled #ChineseLivesMatter calling for a federal investigation into the incident, while public figures also joined in the chorus of complaints.
"Reflecting on my three nightmare-like experinces with United, I can say with responsibility that United is the worst airline, not one of the worst," Richard Liu, the CEO of popular online shopping platform JD.COM posted on weibo.
Chinese-born comedian Joe Wong urged his followers to join the boycott of United.
“Many Chinese people feel they’ve been subject to discrimination, but [fear of losing] face prevents them from speaking out, which leads to mainstream media in the West and the public not taking discrimination against Asians seriously,” he said.
Others made similar points.
“Why don’t you randomly choose a black person?” another user asked in a post that attracted 1,294 likes, implying an Asian was an easier target for racial discrimination than an African American.
The calls for a boycott in China could have a real impact on the company’s bottom line, with shares of United Airlines parent United Continental Holdings Inc falling in early trade Tuesday.
United has often billed itself as the top American carrier to China, operating more nonstop U.S.-China flights, and to more cities in China, than any other airline.

It offers direct flights from various American cities to Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu, and Hong Kong, adding Hangzhou and a seasonal flight to Xi'an in 2016. 

The company got about 14 percent of its 2016 revenue from flying Pacific routes.

China stokes grievance against Seoul at its peril

The protests and the boycotts of South Korean goods may backfire 
Financial Times

History is littered with examples of governments removed by the same nationalist forces they tried to unleash on other countries.
The Chinese Communist party knows this but still insists on whipping up attacks and encouraging boycotts that target whichever country it happens to be upset with at the time.
Today it is the turn of South Korea.
Faced with the menace of a nuclear-armed Pyongyang, Seoul has allowed the US to deploy its Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (Thaad) missile shield on its soil.
China claims the weapons system’s radar will enable the US to see deep into Chinese territory, thereby tilting the strategic balance in the region and undermining Beijing’s own military capabilities. This is certainly part of the rationale behind Washington’s plan to deploy the shield.
The US is essentially telling Beijing that it is fed up with China’s lack of action in reining in its client state. 
If Beijing does not want Thaad to be deployed then it should do more to curb provocative aggression by North Korea. 
Instead, the Communist party has blanketed Chinese state media with anti-Korean vitriol, harassed South Korean businesses, stopped Chinese tourists from travelling to Korea and allowed schoolchildren to be indoctrinated through mass rallies and boycotts of Korean products. 
Korean supermarket chain Lotte, which provided some land for the deployment of Thaad, has borne the brunt of the Chinese attacks.
As many as 87 of its 99 stores in China have been temporarily or permanently closed, including many that have been targeted for spurious “fire safety” violations. 
This behaviour may violate World Trade Organization rules.
Seoul has already requested that the WTO looks into China’s actions.
At a time when Beijing is trying to counter the protectionist instincts of President Donald Trump, this behaviour is self-defeating.
It provides ammunition to those who would blame China for the ills of globalisation.
The Chinese government has tried to distance itself from the protests against South Korea by arguing that they are simply a reflection of public opinion.
But all forms of public protest in China are effectively banned, except those that happen to rail against the latest foreign enemy that party leaders are annoyed at. 
It is clear that Beijing is encouraging boycotts and stoking anti-Korean sentiment in the hope of forcing the next leader of South Korea into backing down over Thaad. 
Following the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye, the country will hold an election in early May.
The frontrunner to replace Ms Park, Moon Jae-in, has already said he would reconsider the deployment of Thaad and that South Korea must learn to say “no” to the US.
Whoever wins the presidential election must find a way to ease tension with North Korea.
They will have to work with China, which is South Korea’s biggest trading partner.
But caving into Chinese economic pressure and unilaterally backing down on Thaad would be a mistake. 
Beijing continues to use economic nationalism in its disputes with other countries because it believes the pressure is effective; in the past it has been quite successful in forcing those countries to back down. 
Wiser heads would be wary of mixing such strategic and commercial imperatives, while stoking nationalism at home.
Not only does this make for difficult trading relations, but those same nationalist forces could ultimately prove hard to control.