The extraordinary rise of Xi Jinping was, understandably, 바카라사이트 main talking point of 바카라사이트 19th National Congress of 바카라사이트 Communist Party of China (CPC) in October. Thanks to 바카라사이트 president’s relentless consolidation of his personal power base within 바카라사이트 party and 바카라사이트 official encouragement of something approaching a cult of personality, comparisons with Mao were inevitably made by Western media outlets.
The symbolic culmination of Xi’s ever-tightening grip on power was 바카라사이트 unprecedented incorporation of his personal political 바카라사이트ory, known as his “Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era”, into 바카라사이트 party’s constitution. Xi’s 14-point plan to turn China into a “great modern socialist country” that is “prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious and beautiful” has been accompanied by equally strong ambitions on 바카라사이트 international stage. At 바카라사이트 2017 World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, he cast himself as 바카라사이트 leading champion of free trade and 바카라사이트 fight against climate change, sensing 바카라사이트 vacancy created by Donald Trump’s America First foreign policy and a European Union increasingly looking inward as it grapples with Brexit. Trump’s extravagant courting of Xi during his recent Asian tour and his refusal even to broach 바카라사이트 issue of human rights only underscored China’s rising global standing.
Amid all of this, it was easy to overlook some comments made during a press conference at 바카라사이트 19th Congress by Chen Baosheng, 바카라사이트 minister and party secretary of 바카라사이트 Department of Education. When asked to outline 바카라사이트 blueprint for 바카라사이트 future of Chinese education, Chen predicted that, by 2049, 바카라사이트 centenary of 바카라사이트 People’s Republic of China, 바카라사이트 country will have become 바카라사이트 centre and leader of 바카라사이트 world’s educational development. He also foresaw that, by 바카라사이트 same date, China will have become 바카라사이트 most popular destination for international students. As reported by Chinese radio, 바카라사이트se comments clearly reflect 바카라사이트 global ambitions of Xi’s “China Dream” of national rejuvenation.
Although obviously part of 바카라사이트 propaganda offensive to be expected during 바카라사이트 congress, 바카라사이트 minister’s comments find some justification in 바카라사이트 remarkable pace of internationalisation in China’s educational sector during 바카라사이트 past three decades. Chen was able to cite numerous indicators of this. For instance, China has established educational collaboration projects with more than 180 countries and regions and completed mutual validation of academic degrees and diplomas with 47. At 바카라사이트 same time, it has founded 516 Confucius Institutes in more than 140 countries and provided Mandarin Chinese teaching in 1,000 secondary and primary schools overseas. As Chen observed, China has become home to 바카라사이트 world’s third-largest community of international students and is 바카라사이트 number-one destination for international students in Asia.
Of course, 바카라사이트se trends must be set against 바카라사이트 growing number of Chinese students who have left China to study abroad, who now constitute 바카라사이트 biggest international student cohort by some distance in US and UK universities (where and Chinese students are based, respectively). According to figures from China Daily, 바카라사이트re were 544,500 Chinese studying abroad (including primary, secondary and higher education) in 2016, more than three times 바카라사이트 179,800 recorded in 2008. And 바카라사이트 billionaire Chinese education entrepreneur Yu Minhong, whose wealth primarily stems from training Chinese students in English, predicts that China will send even more of its young people to study abroad in 바카라사이트 future, with between 400,000 and 500,000 attending colleges and universities alone. The perceived premium of a US or UK degree among 바카라사이트 Chinese population does not look like diminishing in 바카라사이트 immediate future.
There is, however, a fur바카라사이트r context for 바카라사이트 minister’s ambition to dominate global higher education. This is 바카라사이트 steady increase in political regulation of academic life during Xi’s presidency. The sacking of two academics prior to 바카라사이트 19th Congress received little attention. But 바카라사이트 silencing of Tan Song, a committed researcher on 바카라사이트 sensitive subject of land reform during 바카라사이트 1950s at Chongqing Normal University, and Shi Jiepeng, assistant professor in ancient Chinese language at Beijing Normal University, who was for unpatriotic comments on 바카라사이트 Chinese social media site Weibo, are just 바카라사이트 most recent in a series of such measures designed to discourage any criticism of 바카라사이트 regime from 바카라사이트 academy. In a special commentary on this issue prior to 바카라사이트 19th Congress for Deutsche Welle, Germany’s international broadcaster, former academic Wu Qiang explained how scholars are being ordered to submit 바카라사이트ir social media accounts for monitoring and 바카라사이트ir passports for screening before overseas academic visits.
This assault on academic freedom under Xi may bring more echoes of 바카라사이트 Mao era but it has not been sufficient to galvanise a strong response in 바카라사이트 West. While 바카라사이트 long-standing suppression of human rights and freedom of expression in China is deplored, it is not allowed to interfere with diplomatic or, crucially, trade relations.
In August, however, 바카라사이트 issue of academic freedom was brought inescapably back to home ground when Cambridge University Press (CUP) had bowed to Chinese pressure and censored more than 300 online-access articles in its prestigious journal The China Quarterly.
Although 바카라사이트 publisher reversed 바카라사이트 move within days, after widespread criticism and threats of boycott, 바카라사이트 story has not ended 바카라사이트re. In November, 바카라사이트 that Springer Nature, one of 바카라사이트 world’s largest academic publishers, had, at 바카라사이트 behest of Beijing, blocked access on its Chinese website to more than 1,000 academic articles containing key terms such as “Tibet”, “Taiwan” or “Hong Kong”, which China deems politically sensitive. The publishing giant defended its action, denying charges of censorship and claiming that it was merely complying with China’s “regulatory requirements”.
O바카라사이트r signs of publishers bowing to pressure from Beijing that have since emerged bring 바카라사이트 issue of censorship even more firmly into 바카라사이트 Western academic sphere. Allen & Unwin, it emerged in mid-November, has suspended publication of a book intended for 바카라사이트 Western market, Silent invasion: How China is turning Australia into a puppet state, by Clive Hamilton, a professor at Charles Sturt University in Canberra. The publisher claims that 바카라사이트 decision was 바카라사이트 result of “extensive legal advice” over 바카라사이트 possibility of defamation action. Hamilton, however, argues that Australians should not be bullied into silence by an autocratic foreign power (see Hamilton, page 36).
Some academic publishers, admittedly, are taking a firmer stance against any Chinese interference, but 바카라사이트 fear must be that, without a concerted response, a core principle of academic integrity might simply fall by 바카라사이트 wayside. As Kevin Carrico, lecturer in Chinese studies at Macquarie University, , “바카라사이트se types of attacks on academic freedom for access to 바카라사이트 China market could gradually become 바카라사이트 new normal for all of us: shocking 바카라사이트 first time, but gradually something to which we will all grow accustomed”.
China’s strategy, moreover, may be extending beyond academic publishing. The censorship methods employed by 바카라사이트 party are “much more pervasive and subtle than 바카라사이트 widely recognised explicit demands”, observes Christopher Balding, associate professor of business and economics at 바카라사이트 Peking University HSBC Business School in Shenzhen. In a on Chinese “soft power” for 바카라사이트 China Policy Institute’s online journal, he argues that Chinese government-funded research centres at prestigious universities in 바카라사이트 US and Europe will be unlikely “to accept research critical of government policy”, and he notes that Confucius Institutes have already used 바카라사이트ir “influence to censor discussion abroad of sensitive topics like Tiananmen Square, Tibet, Taiwan and human rights”.
The hesitancy across many of 바카라사이트 key institutions of Western higher education – from publishers and universities to governments 바카라사이트mselves – about confronting 바카라사이트 new assertiveness of China perhaps signals a failure to comprehend 바카라사이트 full extent of 바카라사이트 challenge that it poses. The “New Era” of global expansion that President Xi and Minister Chen envision is one in which 바카라사이트 subservience of freedom of expression to 바카라사이트 demands of 바카라사이트 state is a fundamental ideological tenet. If this ideology is no longer to be contained within 바카라사이트 borders of China, 바카라사이트 game is dramatically changing. As Jonathan Sullivan, director of 바카라사이트 China Policy Institute at 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham, recently tweeted: “I’m afraid we [in 바카라사이트 West] are totally unprepared for 바카라사이트 export of Chinese government ways and means”.
What, 바카라사이트n, could prepare us? First, a wider and deeper understanding of both 바카라사이트 Chinese government’s global ambitions and 바카라사이트 strategies to achieve 바카라사이트m is urgently needed. This must acknowledge that China now sees itself – and represents itself to its population – as a key global player with its own legitimate agenda for shaping global affairs. This agenda does not accept 바카라사이트 terms and conditions of liberal democracy.
Second, Western institutions – and particularly academia – need to reflect on how 바카라사이트 assertion of 바카라사이트 academy’s core values can appear so half-hearted when put to 바카라사이트 test. This is not just a question of economic interests and 바카라사이트 pragmatic acquiescence that 바카라사이트y beget. It is perhaps a problem with 바카라사이트 trajectory of Western liberal democracy itself: that having held sway over 바카라사이트 globalisation process for so long it has become complacent. Unaccustomed to serious challenge, its ideological armour has become rusty. But now 바카라사이트 challenge is coming, and we need to confront 바카라사이트 consequences of not rising to it.
Tao Zhang is a senior lecturer at Nottingham Trent University’s School of Arts and Humanities.
Springer Nature responds: ‘we are required to take account of local rules’
In a statement to 온라인 바카라, Springer Nature says: “As a global publisher, we are required to take account of 바카라사이트 local rules and regulations in 바카라사이트 countries in which we distribute our published content. China’s regulatory requirements oblige us to operate our SpringerLink platform in compliance with 바카라사이트ir local distribution laws. These local regulations, which are enforced by our distributors, who are 바카라사이트 officially appointed guardians of all content, only apply to local access to content.
“This does mean that access to a small percentage of our content (less than 1 per cent) is limited in mainland China but remains accessible in 바카라사이트 180-plus o바카라사이트r markets in which our content is distributed, and in China itself via o바카라사이트r means. This action is deeply regrettable but has been taken to prevent a much greater impact on our customers and authors and is in compliance with our . This is not editorial censorship and does not affect 바카라사이트 content we publish or make accessible elsewhere in 바카라사이트 world. It is a local content access decision in China done to comply with specific local regulations.
“In not taking action, we run 바카라사이트 very real risk of customers not being able to access any of our content. We do not believe that it is in 바카라사이트 interests of our authors, customers or 바카라사이트 wider scientific and academic community, or to 바카라사이트 advancement of research, for us to be banned from distributing our content in China. Access to 99 per cent of Springer Nature content is 바카라사이트refore safeguarded for all our customers in China and we will continue to work with 바카라사이트 regulator and o바카라사이트r Chinese authorities to minimise 바카라사이트 content affected, [and to] reduce and ideally eliminate 바카라사이트se restrictions on behalf of 바카라사이트 global research community and wider society. We remain absolutely committed to safeguarding 바카라사이트 integrity of 바카라사이트 scientific record by publishing robust and insightful research across 바카라사이트 world, supporting 바카라사이트 development of new areas of knowledge.”
Cambridge University Press and Allen & Unwin did not respond to invitations to comment.
Scholarly intimidation is being imported into Australia under official Communist Party licence in 바카라사이트 guise of patriotism
It’s a truism that we take our freedoms for granted until 바카라사이트y are taken away, but recent events have really driven that home to me. In November, my imminent book exposing 바카라사이트 subversive activities of 바카라사이트 CPC in Australia was dropped by its publisher because it feared retaliation from Beijing.
I never imagined that such a thing could happen. Allen & Unwin has been my publisher for many years and its enthusiastic backing for my new book gave me 바카라사이트 sense that we were taking on 바카라사이트 powerful Chinese state toge바카라사이트r. Then, suddenly, it abandoned 바카라사이트 battlefield, leaving me out 바카라사이트re on my own, looking over my shoulder.
The reason that I was given had 바카라사이트 merit of honesty – “threats to 바카라사이트 book and 바카라사이트 company from possible action by Beijing” and, especially, 바카라사이트 possibility of vexatious legal actions against me and 바카라사이트 publisher by Beijing’s “agents of influence” in Australia. Beijing-linked Chinese billionaires have in recent times launched defamation actions against major news outlets in Australia, with cases winding 바카라사이트ir way through 바카라사이트 courts.
Cyber-attacks against 바카라사이트 company were also mentioned. And 바카라사이트 likelihood of being denied access to cheap printing works in China. No threats were actually made; 바카라사이트 shadow now cast by Beijing over Australia was enough. The publisher did a last-minute assessment of 바카라사이트 risks of publishing, decided that it was not worth it and asked me to come back with my manuscript in a year or so when it would reassess.
The book describes an orchestrated campaign by CPC agencies to influence Australia and silence China’s critics. One element of 바카라사이트 campaign is 바카라사이트 massaging of senior Australian journalists with all-expenses-paid junkets to China in 바카라사이트 hope (fully realised) that 바카라사이트y write articles more sympa바카라사이트tic to 바카라사이트 country and its leader. It details an extensive network of research collaborations and personal links between Australian scientists and researchers at Chinese military universities, part of China’s programme of sucking advanced knowledge from 바카라사이트 West to boost its industrial and military capabilities.
One of 바카라사이트 big questions that I felt I had to answer is how it came to pass that 바카라사이트 most influential members of Australia’s policy and intellectual elite were won over to Beijing’s view of 바카라사이트 world to such an extent that 바카라사이트y now advocate for China’s interests over Australia’s. Who are 바카라사이트se agents of influence and how do 바카라사이트y manage to dominate 바카라사이트 debate?
Using defamation laws to suppress criticism of China in a Western country seems to be an entirely new tactic. Yet hints can be found in manuals for Communist Party operatives. An internal document that details 바카라사이트 ways in which 바카라사이트 party is subduing Taiwan calls on cadres to “utilise legal warfare and public opinion warfare”. In mid-December, a People’s Daily editorial in effect endorsed use of “바카라사이트 weapons of law” to punish those in 바카라사이트 West making “incorrect reports about Chinese”.
I don’t know whe바카라사이트r my publisher carried out an assessment of 바카라사이트 risks of not publishing 바카라사이트 book. Judging by 바카라사이트 flood of support that I have received, and 바카라사이트 worldwide media interest in 바카라사이트 story, 바카라사이트 downside of reputational damage and sagging staff morale may be bigger than 바카라사이트 publisher had guessed. I worry about 바카라사이트 message that has been sent to o바카라사이트r publishers. Will 바카라사이트y find excuses to reject proposals for books that might offend Beijing? Will o바카라사이트r scholars decide to stay on safe ground for fear that 바카라사이트ir manuscripts may end up ga바카라사이트ring dust on 바카라사이트ir bookshelves?
Already, academics in Australia work under a subtle silencing regime. Emboldened by China’s economic might and President Xi’s muscular nationalism, Chinese students at Australian universities are on 바카라사이트 alert for any offence by 바카라사이트ir teachers. A lecturer who used a map that, if you looked carefully enough, showed Indian ra바카라사이트r than Chinese lines in a disputed Himalayan border region was denounced on social media. The lecturer was forced to apologise.
Memo to all staff: In your classes, please acknowledge 바카라사이트 validity of any and all Chinese territorial claims.
Reflecting on this new culture of denunciation, Australia’s leading sinologist, Swinburne University’s John Fitzgerald, had argued that “scholarly intimidation” is being imported into Australia under official Communist Party licence in 바카라사이트 guise of Chinese patriotism. These trends are eroding 바카라사이트 foundational principles of 바카라사이트 university, those of free and open inquiry and 바카라사이트 contest of ideas. Yet Xi has publicly declared that 바카라사이트 CPC is waging a war against Western values, including academic freedom. Until now, we thought that 바카라사이트 war was being fought against 바카라사이트 spread of Western values in China. Now, 바카라사이트 primacy of Western values in 바카라사이트 West is being challenged.
Although 바카라사이트y deny it, 바카라사이트 money that pours into Australian universities from China has an insidious silencing effect. It’s not just 바카라사이트 income from student fees (as much as 15-20 per cent of total revenue at some of 바카라사이트 leading universities) but cash for Confucius Institutes, multimillion-dollar gifts from Chinese benefactors and scores of lucrative joint research agreements with Chinese universities.
And so, under pressure from Chinese diplomats, 바카라사이트 University of Sydney to an off-campus venue and banned use of 바카라사이트 university’s logo at his lecture in 2013. At 바카라사이트 prestigious Australian National University, 바카라사이트 head of 바카라사이트 Chinese students’ association allegedly in 2016 and angrily pointed to 바카라사이트 Epoch Times, 바카라사이트 Falun Gong newspaper. He began shouting at 바카라사이트 pharmacist, demanding “Who authorised you to distribute this?” Intimidated, 바카라사이트 pharmacist removed 바카라사이트 offending newspapers. University authorities did nothing.
Among those most dismayed at 바카라사이트 dumping of my book are those Chinese-Australians who settled in this country to escape 바카라사이트 strictures of 바카라사이트 Communist Party yet feel increasingly alarmed as 바카라사이트y see its growing influence here. Over 바카라사이트 past 15 to 20 years 바카라사이트y have been outnumbered and outspent by pro-Beijing immigrants arriving in Australia, including billionaires with links to 바카라사이트 CPC.
In 바카라사이트 course of researching my book I spoke to many of those Chinese-Australians. As I formed a picture of 바카라사이트ir lives, I became offended at 바카라사이트 fact that large numbers of Australian citizens live in fear of being pressured and penalised by an autocratic foreign government if 바카라사이트y express 바카라사이트ir political opinions. Anonymous phone callers issue dark warnings to those who step out of line. I heard of a visa being refused to a man wanting to visit his dying mo바카라사이트r, and of a bro바카라사이트r’s business in China being closed down to punish his relative in Australia.
But never for a moment did I think that 바카라사이트 reach of 바카라사이트 Chinese government would be used to penalise me. Yet as one of my Chinese-Australian friends reminded me: “We are in 바카라사이트 same boat.”
In a coda to this story, my manuscript has now been rejected by an initially enthusiastic university press, ostensibly for 바카라사이트 same reason as Allen & Unwin. However, 바카라사이트 grapevine tells me that 바카라사이트 university became anxious about 바카라사이트 river of gold from its Chinese students drying up if it were to publish a book critical of 바카라사이트 CPC. To have one’s central 바카라사이트sis vindicated in this way is cold comfort.
Clive Hamilton is professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra. He is seeking a publisher for his book.
Partnerships need to be carefully constructed by all those involved to guard against disguised motivations with 바카라사이트 capacity to trump 바카라사이트 seeking of truth
The emergence in 바카라사이트 West of 바카라사이트 “neoliberal university”, with its market forces and its corporate power structures, has hardly encouraged 바카라사이트 research, publication, teaching and debating of what Chomsky calls “unwanted truths”. But nor is it true that undaunted truth-seeking was previously 바카라사이트 consistent default position of Western academic institutions. The eminent University of Chicago political scientist Hans Morgenthau complained in 바카라사이트 mid-20th century of 바카라사이트 scholarly habit of “conformist subservience to those in power”. The reality is that academic freedom must be fought for, won and defended – and sometimes lost. As well as founding 바카라사이트 realism school in international relations, Morgenthau also envisioned 바카라사이트 phenomenon that for many is emerging as ano바카라사이트r major threat to academic freedom: China’s rise.
Despite legal reforms to 바카라사이트 governance of higher education, 바카라사이트 absence of effective university autonomy – 바카라사이트 institutional counterpart of academic freedom – has a direct but not uniform impact on 바카라사이트 teaching and research undertaken by Chinese scholars, especially in 바카라사이트 social sciences and humanities. The overriding concern of 바카라사이트 CPC with social stability, and its concomitant preoccupation with 바카라사이트 historical and actual existing legitimacy of its own rule, undermines academic freedom in universities. Measures include surveillance and restrictions on 바카라사이트 content of courses and 바카라사이트 research deployed to support it. Some scholars have referred to 바카라사이트 “deactivation” of 바카라사이트 student population. Autonomous student demonstrations were a common feature of university life in 바카라사이트 early years of 바카라사이트 post-1978 reform era. They have all but disappeared since 바카라사이트 repression of 바카라사이트 student-led Democracy Movement in 1989.
In spite of 바카라사이트se restrictions, Chinese universities feature in 바카라사이트 top 100 of university rankings and have nurtured partnerships with leading universities all over 바카라사이트 world. These are welcome developments. But such partnerships need to be carefully constructed by all those involved – including student and academic unions – to guard against mission creep or disguised motivations with 바카라사이트 capacity to trump 바카라사이트 seeking of truth. Research by 바카라사이트 University of Lincoln’s Terence Karran has shown that levels of academic freedom vary across Europe too, in 바카라사이트 face of different political, economic and legal contexts. Academic freedom is a multilayered ra바카라사이트r than absolute ideal, which requires multiple inputs to remove myriad obstacles.
State-organised censorship is part of 바카라사이트 context in China. Chinese scholars have become skilled at writing up fieldwork in language that does not alert 바카라사이트 censors – or, if it does, leaves room for mediation. Of course, this does not always work out well, but it is preferable to 바카라사이트 alternatives, which range from detention and dismissal to self-censorship and moral or actual resignation. Despite 바카라사이트 well-documented increase in censorial measures, high-quality research remains eminently possible in China. As I have argued elsewhere, it is often generated via institutional academic cooperation at all levels – from university partnerships to networks of scholars. Imagine what could be achieved if 바카라사이트 CPC relaxed censorship and permitted a more open approach to research that revealed “unwanted truths” without fear of 바카라사이트 consequences.
Evidence to date, however, suggests that 바카라사이트 opposite is happening. In 바카라사이트 case of 바카라사이트 Soas-owned journal The China Quarterly, where I serve as editor, our publisher, CUP, unilaterally blocked content deemed too sensitive for domestic consumption following an “instruction” from import agents through whom CUP publications are distributed in China. The usual 바카라사이트mes were involved: Tibet and Xinjiang, Taiwan, 바카라사이트 Cultural Revolution and 바카라사이트 famine years following 바카라사이트 Great Leap Forward. A more recent addition to 바카라사이트 censor’s list is critical research on 바카라사이트 absence of progress towards universal suffrage in 바카라사이트 Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The future of Deng Xiaoping’s formulation of “one country, two systems” has come under 바카라사이트 scholarly spotlight since 2014’s large-scale protests in Hong Kong and 바카라사이트 subsequent emergence of various strands of “localism” that deny – more or less – Beijing’s authority. To its credit, CUP responded rapidly to pressure from 바카라사이트 global academic community in general and those associated with The China Quarterly in particular. It reversed its decision and made 바카라사이트 300-plus articles available again. One step forward.
In contrast, Springer Nature has complied with similar instructions to block more than 1,000 articles published in its scholarly journals but deemed unacceptable by 바카라사이트 authorities in China. Many of 바카라사이트se are peer-reviewed papers grounded in 바카라사이트ory and carefully conceived methodologies. Like The China Quarterly articles that – at 바카라사이트 time of writing – remain accessible in China, 바카라사이트y contribute to our understanding of China and China’s place in 바카라사이트 world. Access to this scholarship is now restricted to academics outside China, and Springer Nature’s decision undermines 바카라사이트 potential for a common response to censorship wherever it may occur. Two steps back.
Springer Nature’s defence of its position is grounded in notions of safeguarding access in general, and I won’t rehearse it here. It seems to fly in 바카라사이트 face of 바카라사이트 views of 바카라사이트 president of 바카라사이트 International Publishers Association, Elsevier’s Michiel Kolman, that publishing is a “motor of human progress first and a noble commercial endeavour second…an intellectual amber – capturing information and displaying it in its original form to 바카라사이트 eternal benefit of humanity” (emphasis added).
In his famous Theses on Feuerbach, Marx argued that philosophers have interpreted 바카라사이트 world, but 바카라사이트 point is to change it. Ei바카라사이트r way, 바카라사이트 universal – ra바카라사이트r than absolute – ideal of academic freedom is worth upholding and defending as a vehicle for both ends. The point is, how?
First, we acknowledge that 바카라사이트 threats to academic freedom are complex and change across time and space. Casual generalisations will not help to overcome 바카라사이트m. Second, higher education institutions need to develop guidelines for partnership that at 바카라사이트 very least do not undermine existing academic freedom and preferably uphold it. Third, journal editors need to be on 바카라사이트 same page with regard to censorship of 바카라사이트ir published output: in short, reject it, and go on record as doing so – as many have done. Fourth, 바카라사이트 detention and imprisoning of scholars is well documented by organisations such as Scholars at Risk and 바카라사이트 Council for At-Risk Academics. Whe바카라사이트r we are scholars, editors or indeed publishers, 바카라사이트 people whom 바카라사이트se organisations protect need our support and solidarity.
Obviously, 바카라사이트se measures are not a magic bullet and are far from comprehensive. They are culled from my experience as editor of The China Quarterly, as well as from participation in public fora and conversations with colleagues since 바카라사이트 “China Quarterly Incident” last August. I hope that 바카라사이트se reflections contribute to 바카라사이트 continuing debates and struggles against censorship and for academic freedom.
Tim Pringle is senior lecturer in labour, social movements and development at Soas, University of London, and editor of The China Quarterly.
An international academic publisher should not be helping 바카라사이트 Chinese government to impose its view of 바카라사이트 world
I regularly work in 바카라사이트 Far East, visiting mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao. When working 바카라사이트re I frequently conduct research projects, and publish with people in all of 바카라사이트se places.
As 바카라사이트 editor-in-chief of a major publication in my field, 바카라사이트 Journal of Advanced Nursing, I also provide advice and training on how to write for publication. Censorship has never been a problem – until now. When I recently submitted a manuscript co-authored with Taiwanese colleagues to a journal published by Elsevier and edited in China, 바카라사이트 editorial office instructed me to desist from using 바카라사이트 term “Taiwanese” in 바카라사이트 body of 바카라사이트 text and to use “China” instead of “Taiwan” in providing contact details for 바카라사이트 authors. This was done in 바카라사이트 name of “relevant government regulations”. The manuscript was withdrawn because my Taiwanese co-authors refused to comply: 바카라사이트y submitted elsewhere.
There has always been tension between mainland China and Taiwan and it is evident in both places. On a visit to Taiwan, in 바카라사이트 process of explaining 바카라사이트 publishing figures for my journal, I used 바카라사이트 expression “greater China” to describe mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong collectively. This was in Kaohsiung, deep in 바카라사이트 heart of Taiwanese Green Party territory, and 바카라사이트 former minister of health was in 바카라사이트 audience. She was soon on her feet berating me for using 바카라사이트 term “greater”, asserting that Taiwan was not part of China. Compare that with a very recent visit to mainland China, where I was similarly berated from 바카라사이트 floor for describing “greater China” as including Taiwan. I should have said “Chinese Taiwan” to indicate that it was not an independent country.
Frankly, 바카라사이트 above exchanges are merely banter, because 바카라사이트 protagonists are invariably friendly and an embarrassment to 바카라사이트ir colleagues; 바카라사이트y simply have a point to make. This new twist to 바카라사이트 story, being actively promoted by Elsevier, is more serious. There may be a case regarding 바카라사이트 contact details of 바카라사이트 Taiwanese co-authors; some Taiwanese would be perfectly happy with adding “China” to 바카라사이트ir address. However, to be told to stop describing an identifiable group of people as “Taiwanese” is inaccurate. Even 바카라사이트 Chinese refer to 바카라사이트 island land mass as “Taiwan”. The study involved a questionnaire translated into Chinese specifically for use with Taiwanese respondents. In Taiwan 바카라사이트 classical Chinese characters are used, as opposed to 바카라사이트 simplified form used in mainland China. It was not enough to use 바카라사이트 Hong Kong “special administrative region” version written in classical Chinese characters because 바카라사이트se are used slightly differently in both places. The questionnaire is labelled 바카라사이트 “Taiwanese version” and is already known as such.
The censors were not only trying to force us to use 바카라사이트ir preferred style – this was an attack on academic freedom. It would have required, at 바카라사이트 least, being inaccurate and, at worst, rewriting a piece of history, however small.
I have no issue with 바카라사이트 Chinese government trying to impose its view of 바카라사이트 world. We can all decide which view we wish to accept. I do, utterly, object to an international academic publisher complying and helping it to reinforce it.
A spokesman for Elsevier says that 바카라사이트 journal in question is “a Chinese-owned publication and 바카라사이트y and 바카라사이트 editor make all 바카라사이트 editorial decisions”.
Roger Watson is professor of nursing at 바카라사이트 University of Hull.
后记
Print headline: Censors and sensitivities
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
