There’s no reason, in fact, why anybody should think that this:
The China Law Blog (previously) reports on the kinds of questions that western businesses operating in China are raising; China’s serious economic downturn and rising authoritarianism have turned the site’s normally businesslike posts into a glimpse of a kind of cyberpunk stranger-than-fiction dystopia (for example).
A new post on the site describes the consequences of a sharp downturn in the Chinese economy: a new mood among many Chinese businesspeople that they are at the end of the long Chinese boom and that there’s no reason not to burn their bridges with non-Chinese firms, because they’re not going to be doing business with them for much longer no matter what.
I guess that it doesn’t matter if information wants to be free, or not. If your major source for manufacturing iPads has an issue, then that’s the end of the matter: “Apple has disabled its news app in China, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation, the most recent sign of how difficult it can be for foreign companies to manage the strict rules governing media and online expression there.” For the benefit of somebody who might only be familiar with English as used by The New York Times, the phrase ‘the strict rules governing media and online expression’ is semantically equivalent to the word ‘censorship.’ The Times is using the former instead of the latter because the Times doesn’t like admitting that it’s picked the wrong side when it comes to American foreign policy.
Now, this is the part where I’m supposed to be at least mildly sympathetic that Apple had to turn off its news app in the People’s Republic of China because the alternative would be having to deal with ChiCom complaints and corporate warfare over every time Apple told its Chinese users something that the ChiComs didn’t want their subjects to hear. Alas, I’m not sympathetic to Apple at all. This is part of the devil’s deal that the company made with the PRC in order to get a pipeline of cheap electronics; and while I’m happy to criticize the PRC, Apple doesn’t really have that luxury. They knew what the deal was. Continue reading Apple submits to Chinese state censorship.
Hillary Clinton’s account of one of her crowning moments as secretary of state has been flatly contradicted by a leading Chinese activist.
Chen Guangcheng, a blind lawyer who escaped house arrest and caused a diplomatic crisis between China and the United States by taking refuge in the American embassy in Beijing in 2012, accused the Obama administration and Clinton of “giving in” to Chinese negotiators.
…but I am too busy being entertained at the charming naivete of ‘Hawaiian independence advocates.’ They are apparently all blissfully unaware that the only reason that they are not instead ‘seditious secessionists’ and currently spending long prison terms on the mainland is because the US government has rightfully calculated that arresting and convicting them for that isn’t worth the PR hassle. Or even really justifiable; based on what I saw in Hawaii, the Hawaiian independence movement mostly exists to man extraordinarily truculent and aggrieved roadside stands for haole tourists.
You may safely assume that we will not be giving up Pearl any time soon, in other words. Also: we will give Taiwan what we will give Taiwan, Chinese inferiority complex over their amour propre nonwithstanding.
PS: Yes, yes, I’m sure that Barack Obama cannot wait to give back Hawaii to the secessionists, not to mention destroy our ability to project power in the Pacific. Just as soon as he gets his marching orders from the People’s Republic of Luna Soviet-in-Exile and finalizes a deal with the Hollow Earth, no doubt. Seriously, guys: nobody in the Democratic party wants Barack Obama to be the last Democratic President, which is precisely what would happen if we gave up Pearl. It’s fun to ascribe horrible motivations to this President, not least because he seems determined to live down to them; but there are limits.
Edward Snowden‘s massive misappropriations of classified documents from the inner sanctum of U.S. intelligence is mainly presented by the media as a whistleblowing story. In this narrative—designed by Mr. Snowden himself—he is portrayed as a disgruntled contractor for the National Security Agency, acting alone, who heroically exposed the evils of government surveillance beginning in 2013.
The other way of looking at it—based on the number and nature of documents Mr. Snowden took, and the dates when they were taken—is that only a handful of the secrets had anything to do with domestic surveillance by the government and most were of primary value to an espionage operation.
At a shareholders meeting on Friday, CEO Tim Cook angrily defended Apple’s environmentally-friendly practices against a request from the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) to drop those practices if they ever became unprofitable.
NCPPR put forward a shareholder’s proposal asking Apple to disclose how much it spends on sustainability programs. If those costs detracted from Apple’s bottom line, the NCPPR demanded that Apple discontinue the programs and commit only to projects that are explicitly profitable. Cook apparently became angry at the group’s request.
China established the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone on Saturday, and its defense ministry said it would take “defensive emergency measures” against unidentified aircraft that enter the zone.
A map and coordinates published Saturday showed the zone covers most of the East China Sea and includes a group of uninhabited islets whose ownership is disputed by China and Japan.