[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 2265-2267]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         THE INTERNET IN CHINA

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 28, 2006

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I chaired a hearing 
on the Internet in China regarding an issue that is deeply troubling to 
me, and I believe, to the American people: that American technology and 
know-how is substantially enabling repressive regimes in China and 
elsewhere in the world to cruelly exploit and abuse their own citizens.
  Over the years, I have held 25 hearings on human rights abuses in 
China, and while China's economy has improved somewhat, the

[[Page 2266]]

human rights situation remains abysmal. So-called economic reform has 
utterly failed to result in the protection of freedom of speech, 
expression, or assembly. The Laogai system of forced labor camps is 
still full with an estimated 6 million people; the Chinese government 
permits a horrifying trade in human organs; the PRC's draconian one-
child-per-couple policy has made brothers and sisters illegal and 
coerced abortion commonplace; and political and religious dissidents 
are systematically persecuted and tortured.
  Similarly, while the Internet has opened up commercial opportunities 
and provided access to vast amounts of information for people the world 
over, the Internet has also become a malicious tool: a cyber 
sledgehammer of repression of the government of China. As soon as the 
promise of the Internet began to be fulfilled--when brave Chinese began 
to e-mail each other and others about human rights issues and 
corruption by government leaders--the Party cracked down. To date, an 
estimated 49 cyber-dissidents and 32 journalists have been imprisoned 
by the PRC for merely posting information on the Internet critical of 
the regime. And that's likely to be only the tip of the iceberg.
  Tragically, history shows us that American companies and their 
subsidiaries have provided the technology to crush human rights in the 
past. Edwin Black's book IBM and the Holocaust reveals the dark story 
of IBM's strategic alliance with Nazi Germany. Thanks to IBM's enabling 
technologies, from programs for identification and cataloging to the 
use of IBM's punch card technology, Hitler and the Third Reich were 
able to automate the genocide of the Jews.
  U.S. technology companies today are engaged in a similar sickening 
collaboration, decapitating the voice of the dissidents. In 2005, 
Yahoo's cooperation with Chinese secret police led to the imprisonment 
of the cyber-dissident Shi Tao. And this was not the first time. 
According to Reporters Without Borders, Yahoo also handed over data to 
Chinese authorities on another of its users, Li Zhi. Li Zhi was 
sentenced on December 10, 2003 to eight years in prison for ``inciting 
subversion.'' His ``crime'' was to criticize in online discussion 
groups and articles the well-known corruption of local officials.
  Women and men are going to the gulag and being tortured as a direct 
result of information handed over to Chinese officials. When Yahoo was 
asked to explain its actions, Yahoo said that it must adhere to local 
laws in all countries where it operates. But my response to that is: if 
the secret police a half century ago asked where Anne Frank was hiding, 
would the correct answer be to hand over the information in order to 
comply with local laws? These are not victimless crimes. We must stand 
with the oppressed, not the oppressors.
  I was recently on a news show talking about Google and China. The 
question was asked, ``Should it be business' concern to promote 
democracy in foreign nations?'' That's not necessarily the right 
question. The more appropriate question today is, ``Should business 
enable the continuation of repressive dictatorships by partnering with 
a corrupt and cruel secret police and by cooperating with laws that 
violate basic human rights?''
  I believe that two of the most essential pillars that prop up 
totalitarian regimes are the secret police and propaganda. Yet for the 
sake of market share and profits, leading U.S. companies like Google, 
Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft have compromised both the integrity of their 
product and their duties as responsible corporate citizens. They have 
aided and abetted the Chinese regime to prop up both of these pillars, 
propagating the message of the dictatorship unabated and supporting the 
secret police in a myriad of ways, including surveillance and invasion 
of privacy, in order to effectuate the massive crackdown on its 
citizens.
  Through an approach that monitors, filters, and blocks content with 
the use of technology and human monitors, the Chinese people have 
little access to uncensored information about any political or human 
rights topic, unless of course, Big Brother wants them to see it. 
Google.cn, China's search engine, is guaranteed to take you to the 
virtual land of deceit, disinformation and the big lie. As such, the 
Chinese government utilizes the technology of U.S. IT companies 
combined with human censors--led by an estimated force of 30,000 cyber 
police--to control information in China. Web sites that provide the 
Chinese people news about their country and the world, such as BBC, 
much of CNN, as well as Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, are 
regularly blocked in China. In addition, when a user enters a forbidden 
word, such as ``democracy,'' ``China torture'' or ``Falun Gong,'' the 
search results are blocked, or you are redirected to a misleading site, 
and the user's computer can be frozen for unspecified periods of time.
  Cisco has provided the Chinese government with the technology 
necessary to filter Internet content through its creation of Policenet, 
one of the tools the regime uses to control the Internet. Cisco holds 
60 percent of the Chinese market for routers, switches, and other 
sophisticated networking gear, and its estimated revenue from China, 
according to Derek Bambauer of Legal Affairs, is estimated to be $500 
million annually. Yet Cisco has also done little creative thinking to 
try to minimize the likelihood that its products will be used 
repressively, such as limiting eavesdropping abilities to specific 
computer addresses.
  Similarly, Google censors what are euphemistically called 
``politically sensitive'' terms, such as ``democracy,'' ``China human 
rights,'' ``China torture'' and the like on its new Chinese search 
site, Google.cn. Let's take a look at what this means in practice. A 
search for terms such as ``Tiananmen Square'' produces two very 
different results. The one from Google.cn shows a picture of a smiling 
couple, but the results from Google.com show scores of photos depicting 
the mayhem and brutality of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Another 
example: let's look at ``China and torture.'' Google has said that some 
information is better than nothing. But in this case, the limited 
information displayed amounts to disinformation. A half truth is not 
the truth--it is a lie. And a lie is worse than nothing. It is hard not 
to draw the conclusion that Google has seriously compromised its 
``Don't Be Evil'' policy. It has become evil's accomplice.
  Not surprisingly, Americans, not just Chinese, are also the victims 
of this censorship. On an informal request from the Chinese government, 
Microsoft on December 30, 2005 shut down the blog of Zhao Jing because 
the content of Zhao's blog on MSN Spaces was offensive to the PRC. Zhao 
had tried to organize a walk-off of journalists at the Beijing News 
after their editor was fired for reporting on clashes between Chinese 
citizens and police in southern China. However, Microsoft shut down the 
blog not only in China, but everywhere. It not only censored Chinese 
access to information, but American access to information, a step it 
has only recently pulled back from. Like Yahoo, MSN defended its 
decision by asserting that MSN is committed to complying with ``local 
laws, norms, and industry practices in China.'' Regrettably, I haven't 
been able to find an MSN statement on its commitment to global laws, 
norms, and industry practices protecting human rights in China.
  Standing for human rights has never been easy or without cost. It 
seems that companies have always resisted having to abide by ethical 
standards, yet we have seen the success of such agreements as the 
Sullivan principles in South Africa and MacBride principles in Northern 
Ireland. I, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, would 
welcome leadership by the corporations to develop a code of conduct 
which would spell out how they could operate in China and other 
repressive countries while not harming citizens and respecting human 
rights. But I believe our government also has a major role to play in 
this critical area, and that a more comprehensive framework is needed 
to protect and promote human rights. This is why I have introduced HR 
4780, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006, to promote freedom of 
expression on the Internet.
  There are some encouraging and innovative public and private efforts 
already underway in this area. Electronic Frontier Foundation, for 
instance, allows Windows-based computers to become proxies for Internet 
users, circumventing local Internet restrictions. Through the efforts 
of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors' fund of a mere $100,000, 
VOA and Radio Free Asia's Web sites are accessible to Chinese Internet 
users through proxy servers because of the technology of Dynaweb and 
UltraReach.
  Earlier this month, the technology firm Anonymizer announced that it 
is developing a new anti-censorship technology that will enable Chinese 
citizens to safely access the entire Internet filter-free. The solution 
will provide a regularly changing URL so that users can likely access 
the uncensored Internet. In addition, users' identities are apparently 
protected from online monitoring by the Chinese regime. Lance Cottrell 
of Anonymizer said it ``is not willing to sit idly by while the freedom 
of the Internet is slowly crushed. We take pride in the fact that our 
online privacy and security solutions provide access to global 
information for those under the thumb of repressive regimes.''
  In conclusion, I am hopeful that the hearing was the beginning of a 
different sort of dialogue--a discussion on how American high-tech 
firms can partner with the U.S. government and human rights activists 
to bring down the Great Firewall of China, and on how America's 
greatest software engineers can

[[Page 2267]]

use their intelligence to create innovative new products to protect 
dissidents and promote human rights.
  I would also like to recognize and honor the work of Dr. John S. 
Aird, a distinguished American whose immeasurable contributions as a 
scholar, population expert, and defender of human rights have changed 
the lives of so many over the course of his career.
  It was with great sadness that I learned of Dr. Aird's death last 
October. His passing represents a grave loss for all of us who are 
committed to ensuring human rights around the world, and his tremendous 
work in this and other fields will not be forgotten.
  Dr. Aird, former Senior Research Specialist on China at the U.S. 
Census Bureau, served for 28 years as that organization's resident 
expert on the population of China. He was a forthright and vehement 
critic of the Chinese government's coercive one-child family planning 
policy.
  During his retirement, Dr. Aird worked as a full-time volunteer. He 
provided expert testimony in immigration courts for 415 families, 
helping Chinese citizens fleeing their country's coercive family 
planning programming to secure asylum in the United States.
  John S. Aird was truly one of the most informed and outspoken 
opponents of China's one-child policy. He testified before this and 
other Congressional committees on numerous occasions, and I believe my 
colleagues would join me in saying that his insights were consistently 
persuasive and well-considered, and proved invaluable to our work on 
human rights in China.

                          ____________________