KNOW THIS: Freedom of Expression is Far From Free
October 24, 2009
In our series of e-books articles now filed in our Publishing archives, we at The Know Something Project sought to highlight and discuss some of the fascinating issues involved in the digital print revolution. Certainly freedom of speech also stands to benefit from this revolution as easy and often-immediate access help make the dream of publishing a reality for more writers around the globe than ever before. Yet the ease with which writings can be altered or physically removed by a remote entity (as in the case of the Amazon Orwell fiasco) raises red flags concerning the potential abuse of freely expressed ideas in a digital world.
Surely the U.S. government and U.S. corporations are committed to protecting freedom of speech in all its many forms. Surely all such parties understand the immense opportunities the web offers for spreading democratic ideals…and the benefits of building free societies in which all ideas are shared and isolated markets are opened to international trade for the benefit of all.
Unfortunately, many cases have arisen in recent years that indicate the U.S. government and various U.S. companies are not devoted to protecting freedom of expression. Within U.S. political circles, politicians and potential candidates are pressured to put the wishes of their party before their personal beliefs of what is best for the citizens they represent. Internationally, U.S. companies have been helping China limit Internet access within its borders for years. And since the economic melt-down of 2008, the U.S. government has been tripping over itself to please China, a significant investor with a huge consumer market that remains relatively untapped. The fact China is guilty of a long list of human rights abuses does not seem to diminish U.S. enthusiasm for involvement with it as a powerful partner…or U.S. efforts to ignore instances in which Chinese citizens are mistreated by their own government.
This Know Something Project series of Freedom of Expression begins below with a look at one such international instance in which writers who oppose Chinese policies were severely limited in their pursuit of free speech by the Chinese government—and the U.S. government did absolutely nothing about it.
—Sherry Seiber
KNOW THIS: Despite a Good Show, Chinese Rights Violations Continue
October 24, 2009
Held particularly dear and promoted widely by Americans as a basic human right, freedom of speech or expression guarantees the right of one to voice opinions—whether verbally or in print and regardless of medium—with minimal limitations. The refusal of the Chinese government to grant this right to its citizens sparked a series of controversies associated with the world’s largest book fair in Frankfurt, Germany, earlier this month.
Last year, Frankfurt Book Fair organizers announced China as the national guest of honor for the 2009 fair. Due to China’s long history of human rights abuses, however, this choice was viewed by many as ill-advised, especially as it involved honoring a repressive regime during an internationally recognized celebration of the book publishing industry as a champion of freedom of speech.
Such criticisms were voiced again a few weeks before the October 14 start of the 2009 Frankfurt Book Fair as a result of the treatment of certain Chinese writers who’d been invited to a two-day September symposium, “China and the world—perception and reality.”
At the forefront of the controversy was Dai Qing, an outspoken, award-winning, 68-year-old Beijing journalist whose published works are banned in her country. An environmental activist, Qing is best known for her book on the negative effects of China’s huge Three Gorges Dam on the country’s resources, including its water supply. She has also published a memoir of the ten years she spent in Chinese prison following the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations.
The invitation of Qing and an expelled Chinese poet, Bei Ling of Boston, to participate in the symposium reportedly resulted in a threat by the Chinese fair organization committee to boycott the event. When Qing and Ling were uninvited by a fair official, an uproar by German citizens led to their re-invitation by an independent German writing organization. While Ling had to finance his trip to Frankfurt, Qing was forced to purchase a new ticket when her original one—purchased by her sponsor—was cancelled at the last minute.
When Qing and Ling not only attended but were invited to the podium at the start of the symposium, Chinese officials abruptly left the conference hall in protest, some say due to the presence of the two writers. Others assert, however, that the officials left because they believed they’d been upstaged; no one had told them Qing and Ling would attend the symposium, much less be called up on stage for an apology by Frankfurt Book Fair director Juergen Boos. After apologizing to Qing and Ling, Boos raced to patch things up with the offended Chinese officials, who eventually returned to the venue.
By the end of the fair, Qing and Ling had been invited and uninvited to speak at the closing ceremonies as well by the same fair official—project manager Peter Ripken—who had informed them they were not welcome at the September symposium. Ripken defended his actions in both cases based on what he had perceived to be the wishes of the German foreign ministry, co-hosts with China of this year’s fair. He was fired from his post following the fair’s close.
In a September 15 statement regarding the September symposium, director Boos insisted the Frankfurt Book Fair represents “democracy in action” and “does not compromise to the detriment of freedom of expression.” So why, one wonders, did fair officials choose China as a partner and national guest of honor? In addition to Qing and Ling, other Chinese writers were pressured by their government not to participate in the 2009 Frankfurt Book Fair, including poet and critic Liao Yiwu. A 50-year-old writer who served a four-year prison sentence in the 1990s for opposing the regime in Beijing, Yiwu had been invited to participate in an October 10 fair-related symposium. The writer told a German newspaper, however, that Chinese state security officials informed him he would not be allowed to leave the country to attend the event.
Is the book publishing industry—an industry that promotes its support of free speech on international stages throughout the year—so desperate to own a piece of the burgeoning Chinese publishing scene that it would literally sell out to a regime that blatantly refuses the right of free speech to its own citizens? China’s widely acknowledged human rights abuses range from censorship to intimidation, imprisonment, and physical abuse. But at the same time, the Chinese market of consumers continues to grow and the Chinese government continues to reach out to partners worldwide. What of nations with struggling economies that pursue trade with China with no real demands for change in Chinese human rights policies? Can any such trade-offs be justified when they involve ignoring and allowing the mistreatment of innocent people, regardless of the power, wealth, and international influence of the offending nation? No, they cannot. Yet the U.S. trade deficit with China in 2008 rose to its highest level ever: $268 billion.
—Sherry Seiber
|