Google’s Official Blog of January 12 stated that the “attempts to limit free speech of the web have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China…. We will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google and potentially our offices in China.”
On January 14, The Times wrote:
“The Chinese Government believes itself to be the custodian of a model of capitalism that is a competitor to the form found in the Western liberal democracies. The belief that freedoms and rights are mere luxuries that hamper economic growth has, since it was first formulated by Lee Kuan Yew, the former Prime Minister of Singapore, cemented authoritarian capitalism as an alternative route to prosperity.
“A shift from a Western to an Eastern model is currently taking place in Russia. The evidence that either model is intrinsically more productive is not yet conclusive but, in time, the creativity permissible in open societies will surely triumph. Besides, freedoms have a value in themselves, something that the Chinese people have shown they know too. This is a contest between two incompatible accounts of the future and never the twain shall meet. Google’s withdrawal from China is the model of liberty declining the model of authority. It might be commercially painful but it is the right decision.”
On the Atlantic website, James Fallows wrote on January 12:
“In terms of the next stage of China’s emergence as a power and dealings with the United States, this event has the potential to make a great deal of difference – in a negative way, for China. I think of this as the beginning of China’s Bush-Cheney era. To put it in perspective, I have long argued that China’s relations with the U.S. are overall positive for both sides, that the Chinese government is doing more than outsiders think to deal with vexing problems like the environment, and more generally that China is a still-poor, highly diverse and individualistic country whose development need not ‘threaten’ anyone else and should be encouraged. I still believe all of that.
“But there are also reasons to think that a difficult and unpleasant stage of China-U.S. and China-world relations lies ahead. This is so on the economic front, as warned about nearly a year ago with later evidence. It may prove to be so on the environmental front – that is what the argument over China’s role in Copenhagen is about. It is increasingly so on the political-liberties front, as witness Vaclav Havel’s denunciation of the recent 11-year prison sentence for the man who is in many ways his Chinese counterpart, Liu Xiabo. And if a major U.S. company – indeed, Google has been ranked the #1 brand in the world in the world – has concluded that, in effect, it must break diplomatic relations with China because its policies are too repressive and intrusive to make peace with, that is a significant judgment.
“In a strange and striking way there is an inversion of recent Chinese and U.S. roles. In the switch from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, the U.S. went from a president much of the world saw as deliberately antagonizing them to a president whose Nobel Prize reflected (perhaps desperate) gratitude at his efforts at conciliation. China, by contrast, seems to be entering its Bush-Cheney era. For Chinese readers, let me emphasize again my argument that China is not a ‘threat’ and that its development is good news for mankind. But its government is on a path at the moment that courts resistance around the world. To me, that is what Google’s decision signifies.”
Eric Koch’s new book, The Weimar Triangle, is available at Indigo-Chapters and in your local bookstore. 
How long did it take for freedom to publish without censorship to be recognized in the Western World?
True. Until about 1960 you couldn’t say “I had a damned good day” on the CBC.
I also think it is sad that China believes unfettered freedom may jeopardize its stability. However, we also do not have completely unfettered freedom, just look at the libel laws. And till WWI most countries did not either. But the development of China, and its emergence as a major power is good for all of us. We cannot and should not interfere.
The two views seem essentially to be saying the same thing.
As to ‘interfering’ in China: Google’s message is that China has been interfering with it, and it may choose not to put up with it any longer.
Interesting, however, and sickly amusing, to watch the hypocritical American politicians deploring Chinese spying on its citizens, while the US government continues its massive interception of private messages of its own citizens – 8 million pieces of GPS information from one telecom alone in a couple of years, according to information recently released. And recall that the Bush administration got legislation passed by the same congresspeople who now criticize China, retroactively legalizing the spying that the telecoms were doing for the US authorities, and immunizing the companies for any civil or criminal liability for their breaking the existing law by helping out.
Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.
I should add that the Obama administration supports that legislation – or at least has not stopped the spying.
Who are you calling a cow? (It was at the time of the events complained of, the year of the ox – still is, I guess!)