Media from all over the world are now converging in China to cover the 2008 Beijing Olympics. They were initially promised that their internet access would not be firewalled just like the rest of China. However, a couple of weeks before the Olympics, their net access were prohibited from accessing the usual restricted sites in China. China eventually gave-in to world pressure and lifted the restriction on internet access; but the problem has already arisen and the damage has been done – China has crossed the line of depriving world media of basic rights. This cannot be allowed to be shoved away ephemerally; analysis is in order to formulate approaches to China’s policy from which the problematic situation arose.
Two issues arise here: whether China has the right to regulate internet access of non-citizens in its land and whether the world media has the right to demand from China the kind of internet access they want.
China’s Regulation of Internet Access
China is not justified in regulating internet access of the world’s media. The purpose of government powers and the regulations that arise therefrom is to promote the welfare of its people. Regulation of internet access of the world media does not promote this in legal and social levels.
In the legal level, as a Sovereign State, China theoretically has the wisdom and authority in crafting and imposing policies for its territory and citizens. However, it has no right to regulate internet access of non-citizens even though in its territory.
First, the rights to information and communication are basic rights of all humans, regardless of nationality. Media members do not shed their basic rights by virtue of setting foot on foreign soil. Article 19 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives everyone the basic right to “receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” As a signatory thereof, China is obliged to respect the raw basic rights of people regardless of nationality of race.
Second, information over the internet comes from all over the world. China does not own the sources of information of the internet, only the infrastructure that allows access to it. Hence, the intellectual properties or information transmitted over the internet are not owned by China, it cannot prohibit intellectual property of one person transmitted to another. For example, information sent by a Filipino through Filipino audience over the internet cannot be restricted by China. Yes it can be argued that China owns the infrastructure and hence can dictate which information will flow in their infrastructure, but it is a basic concept in law that ownership cannot be exercised to violate or prohibit exercise of another’s rights.
Third, members of world media were already promised unrestricted internet access, they have a right of expectation to unrestricted internet access. Although a state cannot be sued or compelled in its exercise of its rights, such immunity is shed off when it deals with private entities, in this case members of the world media. Breaching an engagement with the world media is a legally enforceable right which China, in observance of its own and international laws, should respect.
In the social level, hosting an Olympic event is not circumscribed within the parameters of administration and management of the games and all incidental events thereto. It also means opening one’s country to the world and accommodating every nation and race who wishes to participate in the Olympic experience. When China bade for Olympic hosting, it committed itself to the responsibility of not only setting the stage for the festivities but in meeting reasonable expectations of people who would flock to China. Unrestricted internet access embraces and flows throughout the non-Chinese world. China should meet the reasonable expectation to provide the eyes and ears of the world – the media – the reasonable expectation to unrestricted internet access. China should perceive that its restriction of internet access is an anomaly in the general will and common practice of all the nations of the world.
Right of Media Members to Demand Internet Access
Media members have the right to internet access both as emissaries of their countries and for the bare fact that they are humans.
First, media members sent to the Beijing Olympics are designated by their respective countries to cover the events for them. With or without formal or official authorities, they are sent with the consent and expectation of their countries to be the body to relay Olympic events to them. As the Olympics is a world-wide event not owned by China, media members have the right to expect that they be allowed to exercise acts that are part of international norms. Unrestricted internet access is an internationally accepted practice. China is the only weird country in the world which harshly regulates access to the internet. Because hosting the Olympics means opening one’s country to the entire world, China should provide emissaries of almost all of the countries in the world unrestricted internet access – a facility considered to be basic and normal to all of the countries in the world.
Second, the internet is used to access information and communication. Depriving media members of internet access is not a simple issue of depriving use of a facility. It necessarily results in deprivation to information and communication, a basic right of all human beings. By the bare fact that media members are living breathing human beings inherently endowed with basic rights, they cannot be denied their right to information and their right to communication by an Olympic host country. Except for criminal penalties, no amount of justification or policy in the world justifies deprivation of basic rights. China’s deprivation of a basic human right is not a simple act that can be shoved away easily, it cannot be allowed to pass even though China has already allowed the world media unlimited internet access.
Ends Not Means
The problem is much deeper than just internet access; the problem is China’s policies, its attitude towards instilling order to its people and inside its territory. The aim of any government policy is to promote the welfare of its people. China’s strict regulation of the flow of information over the internet does more harm to the welfare of its people than benefits to them, if there are at all. All information adversarial or detrimental to the Chinese government are the information blocked off by China. Hence, the government is protecting its own welfare, not the welfare of its people when in regulates the internet. It can be argued that governance stability will result in an unopposed government and hence protecting the government from information and ideals against it will eventually benefit its people. However, there is a key element that needs to be seen before China chooses a method in how to deal with its people: its structure of government must guide China’s actions.
China is a socialist state. Socialism aims for equality of everyone. Everything must belong to everyone. Restricting flow of information negates this proposition. There can be no equality if people are deprived of the greatest equalizer of knowledge and communication: the internet. Everything cannot belong to everyone if even information, facts and the truth cannot be transferred from one to another. Absent free access to any information, information becomes kept and exclusive. Not allowing the internet to distribute information makes information belong to some, not everyone.
China should not be clouded by the means and focus itself on the ends. Yes, strictness is a good mean to control people, but it does not produce a good end. In hosting the 2008 Beijing Olympics, China has put itself forward as the host of the world; it should be prudent enough to respect world-wide practices and basic human rights. It is a world-wide practice to not restrict information and communication, it is a basic human right to have information and know the truth.
The single greatest faculty of humans is their mind. The mind thinks. To think requires information to ponder upon. Restricting flow of information cuts-off avenues for humans to use their greatest faculty. In restricting flow of information, China has violated the very spirit and nature of the Olympics: foster human potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment