China's overwrought reaction to Hillary Clinton's speech on Internet freedom yesterday has had the interesting effect of making her words seem much bolder and significant than they actually were. Here's what a foreign ministry spokesman had to say:

"Regarding comments that contradict facts and harm China-U.S. relations, we are firmly opposed," Ma said in a statement posted Friday on the ministry's Web site. "We urge the U.S. side to respect facts and stop using the so-called freedom of the Internet to make unjustified accusations against China."

China's Global Times newspaper went farther, accusing the United States of "information imperialism." It's interesting to read the London Times' write-up of the Chinese reaction, which reports that Clinton had "warned Beijing that its alleged attack on Google, which prompted the internet search engine to threaten withdrawal from China, would have “consequences”".

In fact, Clinton warned that "Countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks" -- defined generally -- would face consequences. Here's what she actually said about China (my emphasis):

The most recent example of Google's review of its business operations in China has attracted a great deal of interest. We look to Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough investigation of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make this announcement. We also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent. The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China, and it's great that so many people there are now online. But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century. The United States and China have different views on this issue. And we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently.

Elsewhere in the speech, Clinton mentioned China's restrictions on information, particularly religious material, but it certainly doesn't sound like the United States is planning to take concrete actions against China's Internet censors anytime soon.

It strikes me that Beijing could have issued a statement along the lines of, "Secretary Clinton is right to say that the United States and China have different views on this issue. We welcome her invitation to dialog but ask that the United States respect the sovereignty of our electronic space and unique political context. We are actively engaged in cracking down on criminals and extremists who take refuge in cyberspace."

Acting as if Clinton's temperate remarks amounted to a thrown gauntlet makes it appear to the outside world that they have something to be ashamed of. It doesn't seem like the response of a secure superpower. 

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:CHINA
 

ZJIN

3:01 PM ET

January 22, 2010

If Beijing's response does

If Beijing's response does not make it a secure superpower, that is becasue Beijing is neither of them. First of all Beijing is not a superpower, given that it cannot unify Taiwan. Nobody can claim itself a superpower when it still has territory occupied.

Then it is not secure. It should not feel secure. So much challenges lie ahead that only a very ignorant government would think itself in a safe position.

 

2010LAOHU

7:32 AM ET

January 23, 2010

Doesn't seem like the response of a secure power?

There is a simple explanation for that. Restricting internet searches about political mistakes 50 years ago is another symptom of not being a secure power.

Very little of what China does domestically make it seem very secure, mainly because it is very very insecure.

Don Bacon, China has spent much of the last 60 years verbally attacking the US, the UK, Taiwan and Japan. The responses haven't generally fit your description for the majority of this time, with the exception of Taiwan!!!

 

NORBOOSE

11:22 PM ET

January 23, 2010

What Right Does China Have To Say "Imperialism?"

China should never utter the word Imperialism. Look at its resource-extracting installations in South-east Asia or Africa. The only diiference from the old Euro Colonial empires is that China is more subtle, avoiding outright political control, which would just cause trouble without conferring any strategic advantages. China is constantly meddling in other countries internal matters for its benefit: Myannmar, Rwanda, Indonesia, Sudan, and countless West African Countries. For God's sake, they even push around the former colonial empires. It used France as a whipping boy after the Olympic protests, mercilessly humiliating the country on the world stage as a warning to the worlds wealthy-but-small nations.

I understand the impact of controlled-information on people's psycology, but its pathetic how easily China controls most of its Han citizens. It constantly brings up its peoples oppressors of a long-gone era to prevent them from realizing their current opressors. In a strange inversion from the techniques of Fascist and Communist era propaganda, which portrayed the homeland as invincible, China intentionally makes its people feel like their country is weak and defenseless. If the Chinese citizens ever actually understood how powerful their country is, they might actually start to expect things from it. Things like allowing freedoms, providing for the general welfare, and living up to at least some bare minimum of ethical behavior.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More