环球时报社评：《中国季刊》敏感文章被屏蔽刍议

reading

社评：《中国季刊》敏感文章被屏蔽刍议

2017-08-21 01:17:00 环球时报

　　西方媒体近日报道了网络上流传的一封英国《中国季刊》总编辑提姆·普林格莱的电邮，该电邮说，剑桥大学出版社应中国政府相关部门的要求，删除了该出版社中国网站上《中国季刊》的300多篇文章，它们大多与天安门、文革，以及“藏独”等分裂主义有关。剑桥大学的解释是，这样做是为了避免整个网站在中国被屏蔽。
　　《中国季刊》被一些媒体称为海外研究中国问题的顶级学术刊物，但该杂志文章读的人并不多。那些媒体借此攻击中国“加强审查制度”。
　　对外电的这些报道，中方目前没有回应，因此很难进一步核实。仅就BBC的报道来说，从不同角度看这件事，会有不同结论。

　　比如，既然《中国季刊》的读者范围很窄，那么剑桥出版社在其中国网站上撤掉一些文章，所产生的影响也应很小。着力报道此事的西方媒体，它们对这些本应不受关注事件的敏感程度看来不比中国相关部门低。
　　另外，中国有维护网络安全的多个法规，《中国季刊》在国外发行，双方井水不犯河水。剑桥大学出版社本来也可尽享英国法律所赋予它的出版自由，但外电报道说它在中国设立了一个服务器，希望开发中国市场，这样一来，它就与中国法律产生纠葛。中国有关部门提出的要求只要依据的是相关法律，就没什么可指摘的。
　　中国屏蔽了境外互联网上一些对中国社会来说有害的信息，这样做是为了中国的社会安全，是中国主权范围内的事。至于这种屏蔽是否对中国也有不利的一面，这也是我们该操心的。中国会不断总结经验，把握对外开放和阻止外部有害信息渗透之间的最佳平衡，从而实现自己稳健、可持续的进步。
　　西方各种机构可以在这方面很自由地进行选择。它们可以不喜欢中国的做法，并且不与我们接触。正所谓大路朝天，各走一边。如果它们全对，中国全错，时间会最终惩罚中国，同时成全它们对先进的保持。
　　如果它们认为中国互联网市场很重要，进入这个市场是无论如何也要做的，那它们就需要尊重中国法规，“削足适履”也得干。现在的问题好像是，一些西方机构愿意为进入中国市场做出适应性调整，而另一些人和力量则为看到这些很不高兴。
　　但这应当是它们彼此之间的官司，它们此方可以骂彼方“没骨头”，为中国市场的“五斗米”折腰。彼方也可以回应此方“站着说话不腰疼”等等。但最可笑的是，西方有一些人不是骂另一些人“没骨头”，而是骂中国“强势”，为中国的法规能迫使一些西方机构尊重中国的规定而忿忿不平。
　　其实这部分西方人是最蠢的，他们连这个世界上的基本法则都不了解，却以为自己又聪明又讲道义，他们完全不知道自己的样子有多可笑。
　　西方的价值观和西方的利益长期处在人类社会的中心位置，这是西方的超强实力所造就的规则。这根本就不是道义，而是强权。如今中国强大起来，有了维护自己利益的能力，我们当然会采取相关行动。请注意，中国互联网法规都是自保型的，而不具有对西方的进攻性。我们连自我保护的权利都没有，一些西方人从过去几百年遗传来的习惯是不是该变变了？
　　《中国季刊》的资料库有几篇读者不多的文章，以及那几篇文章后来在中国互联网上找不到了，都非大事。然而不错，往大了说，它们触及了双方各自在意的原则。那么谁的原则更契合这个时代，这不是“公说公有理婆说婆有理”的事，而是力量的博弈。时间会最终裁定谁对谁错的。

http://opinion.huanqiu.com/editorial/2017-08/11153080.html

reading

China Quarterly debate a matter of principle

Source: Global Times Published: 2017/8/20 23:48:39

Western media outlets recently reported on an e-mail from Tim Pringle, editor of journal the China Quarterly. The e-mail revealed that publisher Cambridge University Press (CUP) had complied with a Chinese request to block access to more than 300 articles from the journal. The articles are mostly about the 1989 Tiananmen incident, the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and "Tibetan independence." The CUP explained that the move was to avoid having other publications "censored" by the Chinese government.

Some media see the China Quarterly as a leading British China studies journal, albeit with few readers. The media criticized China for strengthening its censorship. The Chinese side hasn't responded to these foreign reports.

As the readership of the China Quarterly is limited, there will be little impact over the CUP withdrawing some articles. The Western media, which must have other things to pay attention to, seems more sensitive than some relevant Chinese authorities.

China has a number of laws and regulations concerning cyber security. The China Quarterly is published overseas. There is no overlap between the two sides. The CUP can enjoy academic freedom under British law. But overseas media reports that it set up a server in China hoping to explore the Chinese market, which has to abide by the Chinese law. As long as the Chinese request was made in accordance with the law, there is no reason to be critical.

China has blocked some information on foreign websites that it deems harmful to Chinese society. This is for the sake of China's security and is within the scope of China's sovereignty. China is also trying to strike a balance between opening itself up and preventing harmful external information from penetrating into Chinese society, to realize steady and sustainable progress.

Western institutions have the freedom to choose. If they don't like the Chinese way, they can stop engaging with us. If they think China's Internet market is so important that they can't  miss out, they need to respect Chinese law and adapt to the Chinese way. Now it seems that some Western institutions would like to make adjustments, while some forces are unhappy about it.

This should be a rivalry between the two sides. One can accuse the other of caving in to the Chinese market. But ironically some only criticized the "tough stance" of the Chinese government and felt aggrieved that China's laws and regulations can make some Western institutions respect Chinese regulations. These Westerners are arrogant and absurd.

The West's values and interests have been positioned at the core of human society. This is a rule made by the West's strength. If China becomes powerful and has the ability to maintain its own interests, it is bound to take actions. It is worth noting that China's Internet laws and regulations are defensive, not offensive to the West.

It doesn't matter if some articles on the China Quarterly disappear on the Chinese Internet. But it is a matter of principle. Time will tell whose principles cater more to this era.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1062304.shtml