Gabish?

Count on somebody who scores high on intellectual integrity and low on agreeableness to stand up to the grubby demands of a censorious printing company when, apparently, most authors would not:

The writer Nassim Nicholas Taleb has blasted Chinese printers with accusations of censorship, after the manuscript for a US edition of his 2012 book Antifragile was returned with the instruction to replace mentions of Taiwan with “China, Taiwan”.

The Lebanese-American author of bestseller The Black Swan, which predicted the 2008 global economic crash, posted on Twitter: “Printer of ‪#Antifragile in China asked me to replace ‘Taiwan’ w/‘China, Taiwan’. I (angrily) said ‘No censorship!’”

Taleb claimed he was not alone in being pressurised. “Most authors, I was told, complied. I assume hundreds kept their mouth shut. Not me,” he added.

And a more recent comment by Taleb:

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

@nntaleb
Note that my problem with Chinese printers was resolved amicably (they accepted) but I am SHOCKED that no other author had the guts to stand up to the weirdness Chinese censorship of a US book by a US author.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/dec/14/nassim-nicholas-taleb-hits-out-at-chinese-printers-censorship-of-his-book?CMP=share_btn_tw …
8:34 PM – Jun 22, 2018

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

@nntaleb
2) People here aren’t getting the aberration:

+Book written in US; author in US; publisher in US; readers (of US edition) in US.
+Printed in China <=> Chinese censorship.
+Publishers & Authors find this NORMAL.

This is one side of Globalism Globalists need to explain.

Gabish?
10:32 PM – Jun 22, 2018

Note that the company in question is not a publisher, but rather, a printer. A printer’s job is to print, not make helpful edits to the content of what is printed. Apparently, the content of English-language books printed in China and intended for export falls under the purview of China’s censors.

Also, there is no such place as “China, Taiwan,” any more than there is a place called “US, New York.”

Shut down Confucius Institutes in the US

Why I gave up my academic freedom

This really isn’t that hard:

I’d been invited to give a keynote speech and accept an award at Savannah State University’s Department of Journalism and Mass Communications. In a description of my background, I’d listed the self-governing island as one of the places where I’d reported. But in the printed materials for the event, the reference to Taiwan had been removed.

The department had given the award annually since 1975. But in the past few years, finances had dwindled and organizers struggled to find the resources to cover the expenses of bringing in a speaker from out of town.

Enter the Confucius Institute, a Chinese government-affiliated organization that teaches Chinese language and culture and sponsors educational exchanges, with more than 500 branches around the globe. The branch at Savannah State, founded four years ago, agreed to sponsor the speech.

On campuses across the United States, funding gaps are leaving departments with little choice but to turn to those groups with the deepest pockets — and China is keen to offer money, especially through its global network of Confucius Institutes. But when academic work touches on issues the Chinese Communist Party dislikes, things can get dicey.

Indeed. Confucius Institutes are controlled (de facto) by the Communist Party of China, as part of a lavishly funded global propaganda effort. And the rationale for hosting these things always seems to boil down to money:

Savannah State University does not have a well-funded Asian studies department, and as university administrators told me when I was there, its students and members of the surrounding community have few opportunities to travel abroad. The young man working at the front desk of my hotel in Savannah told me he was going to China this summer with a dance troupe, on a trip sponsored by the Confucius Institute. Without institute funding, the dancers would probably never see China.

And so, schools like Savannah State must walk a fine line. “Often the American co-director is interested in supporting academic freedom and trying to manage the Confucius Institute in a way that is constructive,” says Peterson. Each Confucius Institute has two co-directors, one American and one Chinese. But that’s “really hard to do. And in some cases, well near impossible.”

Australia is even more willing to compromise on this issue:

In the US, Republican Senator Marco Rubio has led the charge against Confucius Institutes. In February, he wrote to four universities in Florida, urging them to terminate their agreements with Hanban in Beijing. Texas A&M University closed its Confucius Institute in April following a bipartisan recommendation from two congressmen. […]

Australian universities are different from their American counterparts, not least because of our tertiary sector’s greater dependence on Chinese international students. Rubio’s approach should have no sway here.

Strange. The county’s Confucius Institutes are designed to teach Australians, not Chinese. The large number of Chinese international students on Australian campuses is hardly relevant in this context, unless of course the implication is that Australia should be careful not to hurt those students’ feelings. In other words: “Nice $22 billion international education sector you’ve got there. Be a shame if something, you know, happened to it.”

In my China Matters brief I outline seven policy recommendations for Australian universities. Above all, those that host a Confucius Institute need to consider more stringent safeguards. Transparency is important to combat propaganda and will help assuage public concerns about Confucius Institutes.

I heartily agree that transparency is important, but the emphasis on combating propaganda and helping assuage public concerns is odd here. The purpose of transparency is more about preventing abuses and violations by the organization in question.

But university autonomy must be maintained, and Australia must avoid the precedent set in the US. The decision whether to extend or terminate an agreement with Hanban is a university’s alone to make. To uphold academic freedom means to safeguard campuses from undue government influence – be it from the PRC, the US, or even the Australian Government.

But shielding universities from US or Australian government influence evidently means exposing them to Communist Party influence. There is no neutral ground here and no way to avoid choosing sides.

Australians need opportunities to learn Mandarin, and Confucius Institutes provide classes taught by trained native speakers. Successive governments have committed to improving Asian literacy among Australians. But they have not – and in the foreseeable future will not – commit the needed millions of dollars to alternative Mandarin education.

For the time being, Confucius Institutes are an imperfect solution to help fill that need.

In other words: money, money, money.

Here’s three more words for you:

Shut. It. Down.

They found his lack of faith disturbing

There is some irony in the fact that China’s ruling party has outlived the Forbes career of Gordan “Collapse” Chang:

When a Chinese company buys a major American magazine, does the publication censor its coverage of China? There is only one example so far, and the results are discouraging. In 2014, a Hong Kong-based investment group called Integrated Whale Media purchased a majority stake in Forbes Media, one of the United States’ best-known media companies. It’s hard to demonstrate causality in such cases. But since that purchase, there have been several instances of editorial meddling on stories involving China that raise questions about Forbes magazine’s commitment to editorial independence.

On Oct. 9, longtime China commentator and Communist Party critic Gordon Chang received an email from Avik S.A. Roy, the opinion editor at Forbes. “Due to a wide-ranging reorganization of Forbes’ content,” Roy wrote, “we are going to be concluding our official relationship with you.” Roy added, “As a result of the organization, the articles you’ve written for us will no longer be stored on the Forbes server nor appear at Forbes.com,” according to the email Chang forwarded to me at my request.

Avik Roy, instrument of Gordan Chang’s collapse

I, for one, am amused to learn that a company called Integrated Whale Media exists. Regardless, this is a creepy case that may need to be added to our growing “Thought Policing by Remote Control” file (see also here, here and here).

Note the lack of an explanation for why Chang was cut loose and his articles erased (“Due to a wide-ranging reorganization of Forbes’ content” is not an explanation), combined with strong denials that any sort of censorship occurred.

Preemptive cross-border censorship

A particularly disturbing milestone:

LINDA MOTTRAM: Allen & Unwin’s decision to abandon publication of Clive Hamilton’s book is possibly a first. It seems no other Western publisher has previously, pre-emptively halted publication of a book in a Western market, because of pressure from China’s Communist Party.

Allen & Unwin say that threats of retaliation from China forced it to cancel plans to print “Silent Invasion: How China is Turning Australia into a Puppet State”.

So what is China’s motivation?

I spoke earlier to Professor Rory Medcalf, who’s head of the National Security College at the Australian National University in Canberra.

RORY MEDCALF: Well I think the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese leadership, is determined to reduce and supress criticism of its policies and of its authoritarian rule in other countries, particularly in other countries that are either allies of the United States, as Australia is; in other words, a country that can potentially band together with other countries to resist Chinese influence on the region.

But also, more importantly, countries like Australia where there is a large, diverse, dynamic Chinese population. China – or the Chinese Communist Party, I should say – is seeking to suppress criticism and dissent among those populations. […]

LINDA MOTTRAM: And so, you mentioned earlier this seems to have been a pre-emptive move.

There’s a suggestion of a legal threat of some sort over this book that Clive Hamilton has written, but there doesn’t seem to be anything specific.

Are they wanting to tie publishers up in court? […]

RORY MEDCALF: […] But if the details that we read today are true and that Allen & Unwin has taken this pre-emptive decision, it’s possibly the first time a Western publisher has pre-emptively chosen to stall or edit or censor what it’s doing in a Western democracy because of perceived Chinese Communist Party pressure.

And that would be a very worrying precedent for civil liberties and also for national security.

Just a couple of weeks ago we had the outcry over the Springer censorship in China, but this appears to go a lot further.

What’s happening with Allen & Unwin actually seems to be more along the lines of this case from last year, but without the mitigating circumstance that the publisher in question is simultaneously trying to run an NGO in China.

No articles for you

This appears to have touched a nerve, judging by the comments below the article (and elsewhere):

Springer Nature, the German group that bills itself the world’s largest academic book publisher, has blocked access in China to at least 1,000 articles, making it the latest international company to succumb to intensifying Chinese censorship demands.

Research by the Financial Times shows the publisher has removed more than 1,000 articles from the websites of the Journal of Chinese Political Science and International Politics, two Springer journals, in the Chinese market.

All of the articles in question contained keywords deemed politically sensitive by the Chinese authorities, including “Taiwan”, “Tibet” and “Cultural Revolution”. […]

The decision by Springer — which owns Nature magazine and Palgrave Macmillan books, and produces periodicals such as Scientific American — prompted anger from academics. It comes two months after Cambridge University Press acceded to similar pressures from Beijing, before reversing course after an intense backlash against its surrender of academic freedom. […]

Similar controversy has flared up over LexisNexis and Apple’s Chinese app store. Western organizations that deal with China in any capacity face an increasingly stark choice…

Thought policing by remote control

Interesting discussion on whether free speech on American campuses can withstand Chinese nationalism:

Earlier this week, Kunming native Yang Shuping, a student at the University of Maryland, gave a commencement speech extolling the “fresh air” and “free speech” she experienced while studying in the United States. Video of her speech spread on the Internet, and Yang and her family found themselves under attack by fellow Chinese students in the U.S. and a chorus of critics on Chinese social media, who argued—at times viciously—that she had betrayed her country. Yang then apologized for the speech and asked for “forgiveness from the public.” Why was she attacked? What do her speech and the reaction it engendered reveal (or obscure) about the experiences of Chinese students on American campuses, and what do they portend for the future of academic freedom in the U.S.? To what extent is Chinese nationalism reshaping university life in America?

The answer would appear to be no.

Related:

But the environmental NGOs don’t usually hesitate to confront governments. For example, Greenpeace activists scaled an oil rig in 2012 to protest Russian drilling in the Arctic Ocean. The WWF and Greenpeace even spoke out against Chinese-government subsidies that have resulted in destructive overfishing, especially off the coast of West Africa.

So why didn’t they utter a peep about China’s degradation of the South China Sea?

Knowing when to keep their mouths shut seems to be the price these organizations must pay to enjoy the good will of Beijing. It’s one thing to offer respectful criticism over Chinese fishing subsidies within the bounds that the Communist Party tolerates as a social safety valve. But it’s another matter entirely to condemn the crimes that China is committing in the South China Sea, a position that would infuriate the Politburo.