CFR Presents

Asia Unbound

CFR experts give their take on the cutting-edge issues emerging in Asia today.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Playing in the Global Sandbox

by Elizabeth C. Economy
January 15, 2010

When I first heard the news that Google had outed the Chinese for their widescale cyberattacks and would no longer operate its service in China if subjected to government censorship, I gave a cheer. Score one for standing up and shouting from the rooftops—we won’t take this anymore. On both human rights and business principles, Google gave voice to what many people working in and on China have been feeling for a long time but only rarely articulating.

The unfolding Google-China drama is important on many fronts, most of which have been discussed by my colleague Adam, as well as by others over the course of the past several days. Beyond the theater of it all and the potential ripple effects through the rest of the community doing business in China, however, Google’s declaration highlights once again the central problem of China’s rise: it wants to play in the global sandbox, but it wants to play by its own rules.

The rules of the sandbox, however, have been established over generations: you carve out your own space for play, you make room for others, you can borrow others’ toys, but only if you ask first, and things work best when everyone cooperates. It’s the last two rules that China has not yet learned and that we in the international community have not helped it learn. After all, a bully in the sandbox is generally only stopped by parental intervention or a truly confident child who understands the rules and is willing to stand up for the others.

Helping China learn the rules of the sandbox won’t be easy. Over the years we have become comfortable giving in to the newest big kid on the block. We give away our technology for the privilege of doing business. We trade out the Dalai Lama in the vain hope that our sacrifice will be appreciated and rewarded. And we make excuses for all forms of political repression on the grounds that people in China are better off today than fifty years ago.

Google is the first popular kid to stand up to the big, poorly-behaved one in a long while. As everyone knows, however, it takes time and repeated boundary setting to help change a child’s behavior. Since there won’t be any parental supervision in this sandbox, we can only wait and hope that more companies and countries will gain confidence from Google’s bold stand and follow suit. If they do, in the end, just like the Chinese always say, we’ll have a “win-win” solution.

Post a Comment 1 Comment

  • Posted by John Li

    Appreciate your opinion, but one critical point leading to Google’s decision is that they are losing grounds to competitor baidu badly that they only have about 30% market share and sees no hope recovering unless some dramatic solution like this – stopping censoring the search results.

    In addition to the high morale ground and public slap of face to the prc government, to me this is an excuse for upper management to the shareholders explaining why after significant resources investment they are sill losing. In this sense, I felt prc government is an convenience excuse for their failure, or else it’s hard to explain why they agreed in the first place to censor results and all kinds of other regulations. Just ask if China’s revenue contributed to signification part of bottom line or they are in a dominant position in Chinese market, will they do the same thing?

    Last, speaking from a Chinese immigrant understanding how Chinese think, google’s threat represents a public humiliation for government which would not generate positive results. Appealing to nationalist feeling, they can not afford to be viewed as weak and capitulate to a foreign company or else other will follow and lose some legitimacy, in this sense Google’s action to take this public first instead of doing some under table negotiation is arrogant and stupid, will not do good to Chinese people and their shareholders.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required