China has a different take on the great experiment.
The Asian giant wants all the economic benefits of Western-style capitalism without the political baggage of democratic reform. China wants a serious role on the world stage, with all the stately recognition and assumed legitimacy such standing carries. It took a giant step in that direction after joining the World Trade Organization. China officially became a WTO member on Dec. 11, 2001, three months after another momentous event that prompted U.S. officials to shift attention away from Beijing’s human-rights record to deal with the more pressing issue of global terrorism.
The U.S. wireless industry can’t get enough of China and its 1.3 billion people, who mostly lack telecom service. The business opportunity in China is bigger than life, an alluring prospect for wireless firms in an uninspiring, sluggish American market.
For now, all seems to be going swimmingly in China for Motorola Inc., Lucent Technologies Inc., Qualcomm Inc., Nortel Networks Ltd., L.M. Ericsson and others. That is, except for the deadly SARS outbreak, which gave consumer demand a brief case of the chills.
SARS is serious business, no doubt. But wireless firms should be equally concerned about Beijing’s clumsy handling of the disease and a mysterious submarine accident in which 70 Chinese sailors died. China lacks a tradition of rule of law and political transparency. Silence is golden.
This is a major challenge not only for new Chinese President Hu Jintao, but also for every wireless firm that wants a piece of the biggest mobile-phone market on earth. How confident can U.S. firms be that China will live up to market-opening WTO commitments? How would one know in a hush-hush political environment?
It’s a good bet the magic of Internet and wireless technologies hastened China’s about-face in ultimately addressing SARS and the submarine incident. China had little choice; it opened up in unprecedented public fashion. It now looks like a stunt. Reuters last week reported a new media crackdown by Beijing officials.
In a 2000 speech, when he was paid far less per spoken word, President Clinton voiced supreme optimism about the potential of technology to be powerful agents of change and great equalizers in the political process, especially in the age of globalization.
“Now, there’s no question China has been trying to crack down on the Internet-good luck. That’s sort of like trying to nail jello to the wall,” cracked Clinton.
But technology does not guarantee success in prying open tight-lipped governments. Shanthi Kalathil and Taylor Boas, associates at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argue authoritarian regimes can use the Internet to reinforce existing iron-fist controls and impose sufficient self-censorship through various means to marginalize technology’s disruptive influence.
But just you watch. Nails will fail China yet.
