Google and China

GOOGLE’S DECISION to close its search engine in China raises major ethical and foreign policy issues about future international dealings with that state, following the company’s earlier decision to cease censoring its services as agreed when entering the Chinese market in 2006. Google blames the move on an increasingly aggressive attitude by Chinese authorities. In response official Chinese media say the firm represents US intelligence interests, while more cynical commercial commentators believe it has found an excuse to withdraw from a market it could not dominate.

In truth there are important arguments for and against the decision within the company, and within the Chinese government on how it should respond. There are nearly 400 million internet users in China and up to 700 million mobile phone users, many also operating search engines. The number of internet domains has more than quadrupled in the last four years, illustrating the extraordinary pace of change there. Most international companies participating in that market are willing to accept the constraints involved in the belief that this rate of growth will outpace the state’s ability to police and censor it.

But how compatible is that with the universal free access to information Google proclaims as its primary objective? The balance of argument has swung towards withdrawal, although the company has not totally abandoned the Chinese market which, in any event, provides only a small percentage of its overall revenues. This highlights and defends the principle of free access in a welcome way, even as the rapid moves by Chinese and international companies to occupy Google’s market position underline that others are less scrupulous. Within the Chinese government there is a marked contrast between the security agendas pursued by party and military centres and its foreign policy establishment’s desire to keep international ties open.

This dispute coincides with wider tensions between the US and China over the value of its currency and worries that this could lead to greater protectionist sentiment in Beijing and Washington. Their relationship is arguably the most important bilateral one in today’s world, requiring careful and sensitive management. Google’s decision underlines that these issues are not only pragmatic but raise fundamental questions about how compatible the freeflow of information is with markets and the proper relationship between capitalism, democratic rights and the rule of law.