~This Issue's Index~

Whither the Internet?
Human Rights in a Global Information Age

By Monina Wang

Over the last decade, globalization and the Internet have worked hand in hand to help China transition into the modern era. Through the rise of interaction and commerce on a international scale, the global information age has opened up China's frontiers to the world. Human rights activists have also rushed to embrace globalization and the Internet as tools for promoting a more liberal and democratic Chinese state. For these neo-liberals, the Internet provides the promise of a truly global society, upholding universal principles over national sovereignty. Yet in their haste to praise the Internet's potential, activists have overlooked a key concern-is there a firm association between globalization, the Internet, and improving human rights? Should people sincerely believe that they can contribute to human rights worldwide with the simple click of the email icon? While the Internet holds great potential in promoting the human rights movement, the effectiveness of its influence in China has too often been overplayed.

Elite Access to a Populist Media

Viewing human rights as a dialectical product of historical time and space, rather than a universal doctrine, makes clear the ambivalence of the Chinese concerning human rights. Many Chinese perceive the human rights movement as an extension of Western imperialism, while others point out the complicity of the government. Given such a wide range of views, the Internet has been hailed as fertile ground for Chinese citizens to engage in a dialogue about human rights issues. Unfortunately, this scenario exaggerates both the extent of Internet accessibility and the Internet's role in building civil society in China.

Like most other media, the Internet remains exclusive by nature and its use underscores class differences, despite all the hype about its accessibility. With the recent divergence in economic development, both provincially and among various segments of society, the desire to discuss human rights issues and access to the Internet remain the domain of the elite. According to Frank Lo, from the Information Center for the Human Rights and Democratic Movement in China, the population of Chinese "netizens" is considered to stand at 8.9 million, with over 30 million Chinese holding registered email accounts. While these numbers are impressive, they are virtually insignificant in an overall population of 1.2 billion and mask huge disparities. Personal computer ownership and Internet use are fairly common in Beijing and Shanghai, while millions in the countryside have never even seen a computer. Whereas 86% of China's netizens have received a tertiary education, only 2% of those classified as laborers and agricultural workers have received the same level of education.

Even if the Internet were more accessible to the general population, its role in establishing civil society has been overstated. It is true that the Internet has allowed for both livelier political debates as well as grassroots-level community discussion. The majority of the 15,000 registered websites in China, however, feature more mundane issues. A recent study by the Asia Monitor Resource Center found only a handful of sites featuring political issues, while topics such as the stock market, the latest computer software, and TOEFL exam tips being much more popular. Chatting and gossip abound among cyber community members on the Internet, while discussions on important social issues such as housing, medical services, and community development-much less human rights-remain rare.

Human rights activists have lashed out against government control or webmaster self-censorship for repressing political dialogue on the Internet. However, the rise of individualism and the profit motive has proven to be a stronger influence on the Internet's development. Lo points out that while over three quarters of recent university graduates intend to use the Internet, their demographic group tends to be more concerned with individual affairs than politics or human rights. Although China has recently experienced a blossoming of an autonomous civil society independent of government interference, this development cannot be credited solely to the Internet; liberal government policies such as Deng Xiaoping's "Open Door Policy," have had a much greater effect on the spread of civil society.

Internet Activism?

For Chinese activists, the Internet has been a blessing because it facilitates access to information and provides a safer channel of communication. News and first-hand accounts from remote areas can be easily gathered, thus making human rights violations and other events in far-off provinces easily publicized in the cities. A recent shipwreck off Shangdong Province, for example, was quickly announced on the Internet, with eyewitness accounts posted within hours. Moreover, freer access to government policies and laws help activists like Lo draft proposals regarding human rights conditions. Conversely, the central government in Beijing can use the Internet to overcome regional barriers, and oversee the actual implementation of policies at the local level.

Lo is also optimistic about the Internet's promised efficiency in communication among activists, with little concern for security risks. Chinese Internet companies are required to register with and are supervised by a multitude of government agencies, including the Ministry of Information Industry and the Information Office of the State Council. Nevertheless, methods of evading government monitoring do exist. The Chinese government's softening in its battle with businesses over the registration of encryption techniques, along with the fact that activists change usernames and servers on a daily basis, have allowed a freer flow of information on the Internet compared to traditional media. As Lo points out, "there is always a lag in computer knowledge between the bureaucracy and the "e-population," which is why [the government] is recruiting university IT students and watching over the BBS [bulletin board system] stations 24 hours [a day]. But how can you scrutinize the huge email exchanges every day?"

Yet Lo acknowledges that at a grassroots level, the Internet cannot replace traditional telecommunications hardware and personal contact in communication and organization. The Hong Kong-based China Labour Bulletin, headed by famous labor dissident Hang Dongfong, still keeps abreast of mainland worker conditions via radio broadcasts and phone-in programs in South China. For the masses, the old radio stations, VOA and Radio Free Asia, remain the main source of information from human rights activists.

Facing a Global Arena

Activists' focus on the Internet's effects on the Chinese state underlines one of the most severe blind spots in human rights promotion. In this age of global economic integration, the authority of the Chinese government has receded in many ways, which means that human rights violations are increasingly being committed by transnational corporations (TNCs). Equipped with highly mobile financial capital, TNCs have frequently brought the state to its knees, demanding huge legal and financial concessions. While the World Court at The Hague has achieved some success in summoning heads of state to trial, there is no corresponding mechanism to address the abuses of TNCs.

An encouraging start is Hong Kong-based Toy Coalition's email campaign against Italian toy manufacturer Chicco for not compensating victims of a fire that took place seven years ago at its Shenzhen facility, a similar incident to the famous Triangle Shirtwaist Fire in New York City in 1911 when hundreds of young female workers could not escape because their dormitory doors were locked. Because independent worker organizations and unions are almost non-existent in mainland China, the victims' rights were marginalized in the Chicco case, leaving the cause to Hong Kong-based groups. The spread of the Toy Coalition's movement across Europe highlights the Internet's ability to carry local issues into the international community. Similarly, the Internet has played a key role in linking activists worldwide in organizing consumer and student campaigns against TNCs such as Nike, Reebok, and The Gap.

These kinds of global campaigns should be encouraged, though the Internet is creating worrisome trends in delegation politics. There has been a tendency for activists and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to grow larger and form shadow organizations for multinational institutions - giving rise to the people's WTO or the people's APEC. Handy "regional" or "global" crusades can be easily initiated through mass email lists and flashy websites, impressing donors. Yet this lack of articulation between global heads and local activists could weaken the foundation of the campaign, the grassroots level. NGO leaders are often busy flying off to attend alliance meetings or UN consultation sessions, creating a "bubble effect" growing increasingly common in social movements today.

Realizing the Potential of the Internet

The Internet plays an important role in arousing concerns and forging cross-border alliances, but it is just one factor influencing the transformation of beliefs, systems, and institutions. Factors such as education, legislative and judicial reform, as well as local political and labor campaigns, need both equal attention and credit. Internet communication and lobbying efforts alone cannot reverse deep-rooted policies and customs.

Last October, the Asia Monitor Resource Center held an IT workshop to train Indonesian workers to use the Internet in their labor movements. Students were taught how to make web-pages and store data, though the workshop stressed the importance of local organization along with computer literacy. The goal was to thrust initiative and voice back to the grassroots level, rather than delegating the task to international labor organizations. This case demonstrates how democratization and decentralization are not innate components of the Internet. The Internet itself is not inherently good or evil, liberating or inequitable; but new technologies and infrastructure by themselves achieve nothing. In the end, societal behavior can only change when people take advantage of the opportunities offered.