The U.S. has secret travel bans with "ideological exclusion provisions" as well.
Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan's had his H1-B visa to be a professor at Notre Dame revoked due to the Patriot Act's "ideological exclusion provision" in 2004. He was also formally denied a B visa to come and speak at universities. He's now teaching at Oxford.
Bernadette Devlin McAliskey is a former British member of parliament. The 56-year old grandmother Bernadette Devlin McAliskey was banned from entering the U.S. in 2003 because she was deemed a "serious threat to national security".
Cat Stevens, also known as Yusuf Islam, was banned from entering the U.S. 2004. That's the singer of "Peace Train", "Morning Has Broken", "Wild World" etc.
And so on. Of course, someone can make the case that the U.S. should not let these people in, but the same case could be made that China shouldn't let their analogous contemporaries in.
You have to wonder why when the U.S. is doing this, people complain about a foreign country, which they have no control over, doing this. In April 2001 the U.S. rammed a Lockheed EP-3 into a Chinese plane just outside the PRC border, killing the Chinese pilot, then landed on PRC territory without permission. Now we have people complaining China won't allow American commissars wishing to undermine it's power in, while of course America does the same exact thing.
This article is not about the US. firstOrder's comment is a example of a "whataboutism" response[1]. While "what about the US" is a valid concern, it's offtopic in this thread and should be placed on its own thread.
While I agree that an argument of the form: "Well X does Y too, so Y is not that big a deal." is fallacious and poisonous, I do think it is important to talk about issues like this in their larger context and I feel firstOrder's comment mostly kept on the right side of that line. (I guess I think the context of the first paragraphs is important but the latter paragraphs verge on something that's less about adding context and more about excusing things.)
In this discussion, it is important to have the context that many governments engage in this behavior. Not so that it can be excused, but so that when we discuss how to deal with it, we can do it in a way that's informed and tackles the actual issues including the nuances of escalating bilateral cycles.
While I think it is perfectly reasonable to make a moral and ethical judgement based on a unilateral context, but it is a mistake to examine the foreign policy without discussing the bilateral or multilateral interactions that help create and sustain it.
The latter paragraphs don't "verge on" anything, they just go straight into anti-American and pro-Chinese apologetics without even trying to pretend otherwise.
I mean, this says it all, right here:
"In April 2001 the U.S. rammed a Lockheed EP-3 into a Chinese plane just outside the PRC border, killing the Chinese pilot, then landed on PRC territory without permission."
The only way you can possibly think that a four-engined turboprop can "ram" a fighter jet is if you have a bias so large that its gravitational field affects the orbits of nearby planets.
More information is on Wikipedia [1]. After reading that article, it definitely sounds like the quoted statement was created from within some kind of reality distortion field.
To add to your original comment: the US pilot insisted that the plane was on autopilot (and thus he was hit by the Chinese pilot, not vice versa), the Chinese pilot had a history of flying way too close to US planes, and the US plane "landed without permission" because it was so damaged after the event that the crew was on the verge of bailing out.
It's funny, it didn't occur to me that there'd be anyone who didn't already know all about it. Not meant to be a comment on you, just me not thinking about it enough.
Your elaboration is exactly right on all counts. And to add a bit more, even if none of that were true, it still makes no sense for a lumbering reconnaissance plane to "ram" a maneuverable fighter jet that intercepted it. It would be like a container ship "ramming" a jet-ski. Even if it wanted to, it simply can't maneuver to make it happen.
> Not meant to be a comment on you, just me not thinking about it enough.
No slight taken. I was still in middle school when the Hainan Island incident happened, and I figured there's a sizable young population on HN that's in the same boat. Young kids tend not to pay as much attention to the machinations of foreign policy.
I figured it was probably due to age. I was in college at the time and it was big news for quite a while, although very much in a "if you're paying attention to the news" kind of way, not something that made people stand up and pay attention like the events that overshadowed it later that year.
Not only that, but why the hell would someone want to risk their life "ramming" a fighter jet. I'm terrified enough of scratching the paint on my car bumping into something, I couldn't imagine the mindset you'd have to have to deem it worthwhile to "ram" a fighter jet midair.
I quite agree that its important to place issues within the larger context. But the original comment did not attempt to. It simply was a list of whatabouts. If the original comment had been a nuanced response aware of the different responses and policies relating to visiting countries with drastically different ideologies and policie, then I don't think anyone would have been put out except the tl;dr crowd.
Cat Stevens, also known as Yusuf Islam, was banned from entering the U.S. 2004. That's the singer of "Peace Train", "Morning Has Broken", "Wild World" etc.
He's also the man who endorsed the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie, said he thought Rushdie should be killed, and openly discussed the circumstances in which he himself would be willing to carry out the sentence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-wjxwpvqps
Since Rushdie lives in US (NYC), I can understand and respect the US not wanting to allow "Yusuf" to enter the country.
PRC sure does seem to be compensating for something with this whole "power" thing and it's paranoia with people undermining it. The entire world just needs to calm down with this whole "power" thing, because frankly, it's pointless. Fighting for control and influence over a portion of a thin crusty liveable layer of a tiny molten marble flying through a deadly vacuum around an average star on the outer edge of a spiral arm of an average galaxy. Think about that and then about what the fuck are people fighting over. That's why the science and technology side of Hacker News is so much more interesting. Scientists have known of our insignificance for ages. Politicians still haven't realized, and perhaps never will. It's like what Edgar Mitchell said, you'd just like to take them by the scruff of the neck to the moon and show them the Earth and say "Look at that you son of a bitch".
One of the most important things we can do is intellectually insist on the separation of the concepts of "China" and "the PRC government".
Today, usage of the word "China" is interchangeable with the words "PRC government" both in colloquial use and in the minds of many people, particularly in China.
This makes it nearly impossible to hold a position that opposes the actions or positions of the PRC government without being seen as anti-China, and thus anti-the-people-of-China-and-their-best-interests (and holds an implied suggestion that the PRC is infallible).
Thus people, both inside and outside of China, who promote ideas like protecting the environment, freedom of speech, protecting the rights of landowners, or freedom of movement actually have Sinophobic ulterior motives and/or are trying to prevent the people of China from succeeding in the world. Viewing any differing opinion through this lens makes it nearly impossible to have honest discussions about a whole host of issues and allows the wholesale reduction of such arguments.
Until of course the PRC itself changes its position, at which point you should too.
this is very high-minded, and logical, but i'm sorry, but in my humble opinion the average person just doesn't have the raw intellectual horsepower to distinguish between 'ethnically chinese' and 'the government of the prc'. the press caters to these people, hence the ambiguation.
Scientologists subscribe to The Church of Scientology. It's a personal decision. Citizens are born into their nation. It is not a personal decision. Therefore, I cannot see the two as comparable. And I know lots of Chinese people who hate their government, societal structures, etc, because of all the problems that are inevitable from those Chinese norms. And that is corroboration for me that it is so easy.
This is not unique to China by any means, and it's one of the reasons I stop reading comments where "the U.S." (drones, genocide, just as bad, etc,.) isn't followed by "government".
The U.S. is different, though, because our government was created by the people, and we claim that its powers were delegated to it by us. In the U.S., the buck ultimately stops with us, the citizens.
China claims the same: it's a People's Republic, after all. Sure, there's a difference between a notionally meritocratic single-party system and a notionally democratic two-party system, but it's not quite as large as the average US history textbook would have you believe.
I'm a student of the Chinese language and of Chinese history and culture too. I read some of the Chinese press in the original language, and, yes, heavy-handed government censorship is much more pervasive in China since 1949 than it has ever been in the United States. Moreover, the Chinese government does far more to "prepare" (ideologically) and monitor its students overseas than the United States does. (I can say without fear of contradiction, as an American who has lived in the Chinese-speaking world, that the United States did nothing whatever to monitor my activities overseas while I was a student. Chinese students in the United States know better than to make the same claim about the birth country government.) To sum up, the Chronicle of Higher Education here is commenting on an important issue of academic freedom that needs a lot more attention. The people-to-people exchanges of many young Chinese students coming to the United States and quite a few United States students, scholars, and journalists traveling to China are more effective in developing international understanding when China lays off trying to control the thinking of its citizens at home and aboard. I'll believe China is comparable to the United States in this regard the day that all prior restraint of newspapers and broadcast news channels is lifted, and when the ruling party of China faces free and fair elections at regular intervals (as has happened in Taiwan for about two decades now).
It's very sad to see that the Academic Freedom is compromised so much, whereas China itself is benefiting from it on a daily basis (think about number of Chinese students who are benefiting from higher education in US institutions which founded on the very basic idea of academic freedom). Moreover, the tenure committee should consider issues like this when they evaluating someone's work.
On the other hand, some other scholars were "smart" enough to steer their voice to a more positive direction. For example, articles such as "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression" (published on American Political Science Review) is something PRC prefer than a honest criticism.
How pervasive are these blacklists, exactly? I took International Relations classes with a lecturer whose specialist field of interest is China, and his writing on the subject of China's attitude towards human rights, the resistance to democratic reform and a full-length book on Mao doesn't seem to have stopped him from being able to get a visa, or even from briefly living in China and affiliating himself to a Chinese university.
Is it possible the self-censorship is not only worse than actual attempts to censor Western scholars, but would be a potential issue for academics serious about studying China even if China had a completely free press due to fear of offending cultural sensibilities? What's the standard of academic discourse on the Rape of Nanking for scholars with aspirations to study in Japanese institutions like?
China can censor scholars publishing in China, but it cannot directly censor scholars publishing outside. Hence the phenomenon in this article: visa bans and other methods of pressure that aim at getting scholars to censor themselves.
And re: Japan, I'm not aware of Japanese authorities denying visas to academics on the basis of their beliefs. There's no comparable issue here anyway: Japanese textbooks do cover Japanese war crimes in detail, with denialists a marginal fringe, while denial of the Tiananmen massacre (etc) is official PRC state policy.
> Japanese textbooks do cover Japanese war crimes in detail, with denialists a marginal fringe
While I agree that denialists might be marginal, I wasn't aware that textbooks cover war crimes "in detail"? My only personal experience is as an exchange student to Fukuoka in 96-97 -- and there certainly wasn't much "detailed" coverage of Japanese war crimes in second year of high school as I recall.
But that's a few years ago now, maybe the curriculum has been updated?
Well, that's going to depend on how much detail you expected: Japan has several thousand years of history and a dozen years to teach it all to each child, with 50+ approved textbooks to choose from.
I wonder has the author ever researched on how the U.S give out VISA? or the millions of ways to get on the blacklist of US? For example, mentioning you want to pursue a career in U.S after graduating from a U.S university will cause your visa to be denied. Now that's a lot to talk about.
The VISAs aren't really the point. The point is that researchers outside of China are censoring themselves in order to retain access to their object of study. This has a wider chilling effect.
They are different, but at the same time both visas and censorship are a matter od policy and politics. One could argue that both are damaging country reputation to some extent.
This feels like the next cold war. The new guy vs the established old man. Both want power and dominance. No nukes this time, that's silly. This time, it's knowledge, technology, patents, designs, and trade secrets.
I'm slightly disappointed about the level of discourse here about this. Visa issues are a side show - the real story is about the self censorship people are subjecting themselves to.
The important idea that Perry Link suggests is that US Universities should deliberately push at the very limits of Chinese censorship within China, so that academics will feel free to discuss thing within those boundaries.
It's quite a clever way of trying to avoid the self-censorship trap, which - as the author points out - is probably more dangerous than the actual censorship itself.
There's an inconvenient "solution". Start changing your full name to a very common one like John Smith or whatever is an extremely common combination. This probably has other uses as well. The passing test is whether or not someone can google you returning hundreds or ideally thousands of results.
This will only last as long as "searching" remains a purely textual experience. Just wait until searching for people by uploading a photo becomes more prevalent; I can see people advocating for those to undergo facial reconstruction surgery.
We can rewrite large portions of the article to illustrate how citizens in Western countries self-censor to ensure they can always get a job...
I do not know why I am barred from being employed at a job. There are many possible reasons; I speak and blog often in support of labor rights in businesses and in criticism of various employers. But no recruiter or HR person will say exactly where or when I crossed a line. Giving clear punishment for unclear reasons will cause any person, whether directly involved or merely an observer, to be cautious and to censor what one says on financially sensitive topics. Businesses in the West have used this technique on their own workers for decades.
Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan's had his H1-B visa to be a professor at Notre Dame revoked due to the Patriot Act's "ideological exclusion provision" in 2004. He was also formally denied a B visa to come and speak at universities. He's now teaching at Oxford.
Bernadette Devlin McAliskey is a former British member of parliament. The 56-year old grandmother Bernadette Devlin McAliskey was banned from entering the U.S. in 2003 because she was deemed a "serious threat to national security".
Cat Stevens, also known as Yusuf Islam, was banned from entering the U.S. 2004. That's the singer of "Peace Train", "Morning Has Broken", "Wild World" etc.
And so on. Of course, someone can make the case that the U.S. should not let these people in, but the same case could be made that China shouldn't let their analogous contemporaries in.
You have to wonder why when the U.S. is doing this, people complain about a foreign country, which they have no control over, doing this. In April 2001 the U.S. rammed a Lockheed EP-3 into a Chinese plane just outside the PRC border, killing the Chinese pilot, then landed on PRC territory without permission. Now we have people complaining China won't allow American commissars wishing to undermine it's power in, while of course America does the same exact thing.