1. China Internet Policy Recommendation for
the Asia Foundation
Monica Chan
June 24, 2013

2. I. Introduction
China currently has the world’s largest number of internet users. Since the country’s
introduction to the Internet connection established in 1994, there has been an annual increase of
20 to 30 percent of users (China Education and Research Network 2001). This is occurring in an
era where technology has become an important part of China becoming a major leader and
player in the global market. China’s lead in the global market has been primarily due to Deng
Xiao Ping’s 1970s “gaifekai fang” (reform and opening) of the economy as well as the country’s
introduction to the World Wide Web.
While China embraces the web as a vital communications tool to participate in the global
market economy, there is a strong link between the use of the internet and human rights. The
development of the internet in China has raised concerns in the United States due to issues
related to human rights, cyber security, and trade and investment. Since the People’s Republic
of China was founded in 1949, the Chinese government has been accused of barring and
manipulating the flow of information to Chinese citizens. This is a strategy that allows the
Chinese government to maintain and control cultural boundaries that emphasizeson a Communist
party view.
While many sites are blocked by China’s internet firewall, the development of VPN
technology allows Chinese citizens to view news sources, access blogs, and visit sites that
challenge Chinese cultural boundaries. Out of fear, the Chinese government has implemented
counter censorship software that is used to control internet information flow that is allowed into
the country. Strict guidelines, policies, and regulations were implemented to prevent “harmful”
or politically sensitive materials to flow on the internet that may be critical to the Chinese
government. This means that there are strict regulations on what is being aired from domestic

3. and foreign news both online, on television, and in print. Sensitive topics include religious
groups such as the Falun Gong, Taiwan, Tiananmen Square, Tibet, corrupt government
officials,human rights violations, and public health crises such as the April 2003 SARS outbreak.
II. The Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on
Maintaining Internet Security
In efforts to control sensitive information from being exposed, to protect internet
operations, as well as to encourage the use the internet for economic development, the Chinese
government implementedthe internet policy decision titled“The Decision of the Standing
Committee of the National People’s Congress on Maintaining Internet Security.” This document
comprises of laws and regulations that ban “harmful” information and aims at “safeguard[ing]
internet operations” for the interest of the public to maintain order and stability (National
People’s Congress 2). The Chinese government currently struggles with conflicting views on
keeping an open door internet policy for the purpose of competing with other nations in the
global economic market as well as maintaining cultural roots/boundaries that align with the
“Chinese way.”
The policy document was passed on December 28th
, 2000, by the Standing Committee of the
National People’s Congress. According to the Decision, it is the government’s role to “safeguard”
internet operations by preserving Chinese communist culture and at the same time foster
economic growth (National People’s Congress 2). The following are several policies under the
first and second provisionsthat are considered crimes against the state:
1. Invading computer systems that have confidential information about state affairs, state
defense
2. Causing and spreading computer viruses and creating destructive programs that attack
other computer communications systems causing damage to system wide networks.

4. 3. Spreading information, rumors, and slander over the internet for the purpose of
overthrowing the state government, “overthrowing the socialist system,” or breaking
up/destroying the country’s unity
4. Stealing and/or leaking classified government and military information via the internet.
5. Using the internet to ruin racial and ethnic unity as well as ignite racial or ethnic hatred.
6. Using the internet to organize cults or contacting cults to “destroy racial and ethnic unity”
(National People’s Congress, 1-2)
These policies aim at protecting the state, its classified information, as well asgovernment
security systems. While the rules outlined are stated to be applicable to “legal persons” in the
China, the wording through the document is vague and leaves room for misinterpretation for who
a “legal person” is. According to GadyEspstein of Forbes magazine, there are millions of
undocumented workers in China who are contributing to the economic system but are not
considered “legal.” Also, what constitutes as “destroying the country’s unity” and using the
internet to “ruin racial and ethnic unity” is not well defined (Epstein 2010). What comprises of
China’s ethnic unity and who is part of the racial category?
While the People’s Republic of China officially recognizes 55 ethnic groups in China, the
Han constitute as the majority (Wessendorf 244). Currently, heightened tensions between Han
and Non Han Chinese exist especially in the Western Xinjiang province of China where
increased ethnic tension due to social and economic division arecausing provincial instability.In
a report by the Guardian in June 2013, eleven Uighurs were jailed and/or fined for “online
extremism”. The report states that one Uighur was jailed for downloading material that
“whipped up religious fervour and preached holy war “ and whipped up ethnic enmity” (The
Guardian 2013). Two people were also fined and jailed for 15 days for posting extremist
materials on a blog,while and another Uighur was jailed and suspected of spreading materials on
the internet that “advocated religious extremism and terrorism” (The Guardian 2013). This was
considered in direct violation of the Decision’s regulation and policies of destroying the

5. country’s unity. The question that is raised is whether or not the offending one of the 55 ethnic
groups is considered part of destroying ethnic unity if and when a Han Chinese uses the internet
to slander a minority group.
In examining the third provision of the Decision, the policies are centered on crimes
against any disruptions towards the government’s maintenance of a socialist market economy
and social management. Several of these policieslist crimes against creating and falsifying
information through the internet about activities about the stock market, ruining people’s
business reputation via the internet, and creating and providing links to pornographic sites.
The fourth provision focuses on protecting the physical and property rights of legal persons by
deeming the following as crimes: insulting people or creating stories online, changing, deleting,
or interfering in other people’s e-mails and activities, and stealing over the internet. What is not
clear in this particular provision is whether or not it is illegal for the government to “interfere” in
people’s e-mails and/or activities without just cause.
The fifth provision states that “those who commit crimes, other than the listed four
categories via internet, shall also take criminal responsibility in accordance with criminal law
stipulations” (National People’s Congress 2) This statement is very ambiguous as it allows the
state to charge a citizen with criminal offenses for crimes that are not listed in the Decision.
What constitutes as a crime in this provision is not defined and suggests that modifications
and/or additions to the law can be made at any time to be used against political dissidents.
III. Cultural Model
All of the provisions in the policy documentare themed around a nationalist-cultural
model where it is the government’s interest to intervene in creating the cultural identity of the
country. It is the state’s role to set regulations on what information is communicated to Chinese

6. citizens through determining what types of information is deemed as appropriate or destructive.
Individual citizens do not have the right to decide on what content on the internet is available to
the public.
Based on content regulation of the state, the policies in this document assume that it is the
state’s role is to protect and safeguarded the nation’s internet communications activities in order
to maintain social stability. To undermine the stability by spreading rumors on the internet, even
it were the truth would be to infringe on the state’s goal of solidifying the nation’s cultural
identity.
IV. Implications for international relations
While China has been a member of the World Trade Organization since December of
2001,China’s internet censorship policies have instigated criticisms and pressures from
companies in countries such as the United States (BBC News 2001). The world’s largest search
engine, Google, had asked Western governments to pressure the Chinese government on its
internet censorship rules and regulations. The company claimed that China’s internet policies not
only create human rights problems butalso creates trade barriers to international countries.
David Drummond, Google’s Chief Legal Officer stated that the United States and Europe should
put pressures on the Chinese regime on their internet restrictions because it has “disadvantaged”
multinational companies and that government talks are the only way where China’s tight internet
policy restrictions can be revised (Clendenin 2013).
Despite international pressures on easing internet regulation, China’s released the first
ever White Paper on Internet regulation/policy in 2010. While the document guarantees freedom
of speech on the internet, it also states that certain information cannot be produced or spread
such as contents that “subvert state power,” “undermine national unity,” “infringe uponnational

7. honor and interests,” and “incite ethnic hatred and secession” (Xinhua 2010). The White Paper
does not give specific examples of what types of content within these categories would be
banned or considered a criminal offense.
Currently, China is under scrutiny from the international community for implementing
internetpolicies that are vague and centeredon censorship. In response, the United States is
currently proposing strategies that promote China’s global internet freedom. While complete
network neutrality in China is currently impossible, internet freedom initiatives in the U.S. are
suggesting that China’s internet policies shift can from a completely government controlled
model to a more transparent one. According to Christine Stover, China is exemplary of a
government control model where the state has complete control over how the internet is
regulated (Stover 82). Filtering of what information is searched on, and what information flows
in and out of the country is heavily controlled by the Chinese government. In an attempt to
address China’s issues of heavy internet regulation, working beyond borders internationally
would help address internet censorship issues.
Currently, several companies have joined together to form the Global Network Initiative
(GNI). GNI aims at promoting ethical practices related to U.S. companies in countries where
there is heavy internet censorship or internet regulations that impede on human rights. The GNI
adopted a set of guidelines that regulate how they do business and at the same time “protect and
advance freedom of expression and the right to privacy when faced with pressures from
governments to take actions that infringe upon these rights (Lum, Figliola, Weed 9). While GNI
is focused on setting realistic goals and maintaining “real incentives,” human rights advocates
accuse GNI of being too broad in their guidelines.

8. Other attempts of U.S. promoting internet freedom include The State Department’s
global human rights initiative to promote “a single Internet where all humanity has equal access
to knowledge and ideas” (Lum, Figliola, Weed 9).A task force called the NetFreedom was
created in 2006 for the purposes of policy outreach for internet freedom. This taskforce is
organized by the Secretary State for Democracy and Global Affairs, the Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor. The goals of Netfreedom include reporting and monitoring internet
freedom in foreign countries; report on findings in the State Department’s Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices, as well as use bilateral diplomacy to respond to Internet Freedom
threats (Lum, Figliola, Weed 11).
V. Recommendations
Similar to the policy recommendations from the Global Network Initiative as well as the
State Department’s NetFreedom task force, international nonprofit foundationssuch as the Asia
Foundation can create policies that are dedicated to economic and technological governance.
The proposals put forward in this report are in accordance with the Asia Foundation’s China
policy chapter’s goals. The following arethree main policy themes that should be consirered in
formulating and/or modifying the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s
Congress on Maintaining Internet Security:
1. Education/Outreach
2. Industry and Trade
3. Flow of accurate information
In terms of education/outreach, the Asia Foundation can implement programs that spread
awareness of China’s current media policy and its impacts on Chinese citizens.
Continuingdialogue from these educational programs can help to outline policy deficiencies and

9. their solutions. Currently, China is focused on developing bilateral relations with many
developed countries for trade and cultural expansion. The Asia Foundation programs will serve
as a platform for communicating the reservations of these countries on China’s internet policy to
the Chinese government.
Since China’s internet policy has significant direct and indirect impacts on industry and
trade, it is important for the Asia Foundation to develop groups/task forces similar to the Global
Network Initiative. The goal of these task forces will be to develop specific guidelines for
businesses regarding policy compliance as well as best practices for conducting online business
with China. The current restrictions on information flow in China marginalize the ability of
Chinese citizens to obtain information that is relevant to their fundamental rights. The Asia
Foundation will develop a series of dialogues with corporations, foundations, and nonprofit
organizations that have bilateral relations with China to discuss ongoing efforts on how to
promote and encourage accurate information flow with their Chinese partners. With these efforts,
the Asia Foundation can provide solutions through participation and multi-stakeholder
consultations.

10. Works Cited
"China Jails Uighurs for Online 'extremism'" China Jails Uighurs for Online 'extremism' The
Guardian, 20 June 2013.Web. 15 June 2013.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/china-jails-uighurs-online-extremism>.
Epstein, Gady."China's Immigration Problem."Forbes. N.p., 1 July 2010. Web. 3 June 2013.
"Evolution of Internet in China."China Education and Research Network.N.p., 1 Jan. 2001. Web.
06 June 2013. <http://www.edu.cn/introduction_1378/20060323/t20060323_4285.shtml>.
NA. "China Joins the WTO - at Last." BBC News. N.p., 11 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 June 2013.
National People’s Congress."The Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s
Congress on Maintaining Internet Security."N.p., 28 Dec. 28. Web. 01 June 2013.
Thomas, Lum, Patricia MoloneyFigliola, and Matthew Weed."China, Internet Freedom, and U.S.
Policy."Congressional Research Service (2012): 1-24. Print.
"The Internet in China - White Paper."Xinhuanet. The Information Office of the State Council, 8
June 2010. Web. 15 June 2013.<http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-
06/08/c_13339232.htm>.
Wessendorf.“The Indigenous World 2011.”The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.
May 2011.
<http://www.iwgia.org/iwgia_files_publications_files/0454_THE_INDIGENOUS_ORL
D-2011_eb.pdf>
Clendenin, Mike. “China Strikes Back at Google.”21 June 2010. Web 5 June 2013.
http://www.informationweek.com/storage/data-protection/china-strikes-back-at-
google/225700803
Stover, Christine. “Network Neutrality: A Thematic Analysis of Policy Perspectives Across the
Globe.” Volumne 3, Issue 1. 2010.