NationStates Jolt Archive

Says that this is the third such case. I know we have discussed about this earlier...but there seems to be no change in Yahoo's policy. Do you think that this is ethically right for Yahoo?

I think not.

http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEN20060419125221&Title=Infotech&Topic=0&?headline=Yahoo~'sends'~internet~writer~to~jail
Yahoo accused of helping jail China Internet writer
Thursday April 20 2006 00:00 IST

Reuters

BEIJING: Yahoo Inc may have helped Chinese police to identify an Internet writer who was subsequently jailed for four years for subversion in the third such case, an advocacy group for journalists said on Wednesday.

News implicating Yahoo in the imprisonment of Jiang Lijun in 2003 surfaced on the eve of a summit between Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington.

It was the third such case involving the U.S. Internet giant.

Yahoo was accused of providing electronic records to Chinese authorities that led to an eight-year prison term for Li Zhi for subversion in 2003 and of helping to identify Shi Tao, who was accused of leaking state secrets abroad and jailed last year for 10 years.

The Paris-based Reporters Without Borders said it had obtained a copy of the verdict showing that Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) helped Chinese police to identify Jiang by confirming that the e-mail account ZYMZd2002 had been used jointly by Jiang and another pro-democracy activist Li Yibing.

"Little by little we are piecing together the evidence for what we have long suspected, that Yahoo! is implicated in the arrest of most of the people that we have been defending," the group said.

"We hope this Internet giant will not, as it has each time it has been challenged previously, hide behind its local partner, Alibaba, to justify its behaviour. Whatever contract it has with this partner, the e-mail service is marketed as Yahoo!," it said.

But the watchdog conceded that the access code could also have been provided by Li, who is suspected of having been a police informer in the case.

Yahoo could not immediately be reached for comment. The company has defended itself in the past, saying it had to abide by local laws.

The 40-year-old Jiang was accused of seeking to use "violent means" to impose democracy, Reporters Without Borders said.

Police believed Jiang to be the leader of a small group of Internet dissidents, including Liu Di, a university student who was detained for one year and released in November 2003 after police decided against pressing charges.

The case is the latest in a string of examples that highlight the friction between profits and principles for Internet companies doing business in China, the world's number-two Internet market.

Web search giant Google Inc. has come under fire for saying it would block politically sensitive terms on its new China site, bowing to conditions set by Beijing.

In December, Microsoft shut down a blog at MSN Spaces belonging to outspoken blogger Michael Anti under Chinese government orders.

China has intensified a crackdown on the media in the past year, sacking newspaper editors, arresting journalists and closing publications.

This always makes me wonder why it is people seem to want to go after Google, who actually states that the government censor's their content at google.cn and does not give leads to the chinese government, something both Microsoft and Yahoo have been accused of doing.

I wrote a paper on this topic for a comparative Asian politics class.

The dicotomy between "profits and principle" is a false one; the reality of the situation is far more complex. The nature of Chinese politics is as such: a) economic development is one of the primary policy concerns of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as that development enhances the CCP's legitimacy and ability to rule, and b) making sure that the CCP maintains its legitimacy and ability to rule is the paramount concern of the CCP. The CCP saw what happened to the Soviet Union when the political system there began to fall apart, and the CCP is desperate to ensure that the same does not occur in China. As such, as far as the CCP is concerned, the use of authoritarian tactics to maintain control over the economic modernization process is vital. Thus, those forces who do not cooperate (including American technology corporations) will find themselves having to contend with an authoritarian government.

Those who argue that American corporations are putting profits ahead of principle when they cooperate with the Chinese government are missing the fact that the continued access of American corporations to the Chinese market is vital for moderating and even democratizing the CCP, and Chinese politics in general. Again, the CCP is desperate to economically modernize China, but it is also desperate to prevent the political system from falling apart as a result (Western-style capitalism and democracy are often considered to be "anarchical"). If American business refused to do business in China, or was denied access to China, Chinese economic development would take serious damage. As a result, the CCP would lose legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese people. What happens when the people lose faith in their political leadership? They rebel; that is, the political system destabilizes and perhaps even falls apart. How is an authoritarian government desperate to maintain political control likely to reply to such events? Human and civil rights abuses are going to get much worse than they already are.

By allowing continued access of American business to the Chinese market, economic moderization and development there can be augmented by the international economic process. If economic development goes well in China, the CCP will have an easier time retaining legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. This means a more stable political environment, which in turn means that the CCP need not rely on increasingly severe authoritarian tactics for maintaining order. American business also provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate good will toward China, create links with the Western world to China (thus creating avenues of democratic influence that are legitimate in the eyes of the CCP), and increasingly involve China in the international economic and political order. (I argued in my paper that the hierarchical nature of the business corporation would in particular appeal to Chinese culture drawn out of the Confucian tradition. Again, perhaps something familiar that would make working with the West easier -- while also demonstrating, contrary to CCP fears, that Western-style capitalism does not automatically mean anarchical chaos; as such, increasing authoritarian control is not necessary to maintain order.)

All of these are excellent opportunities to demonstrate to the CCP that the world is out to help them, not destroy them. When backed into a corner, authoritarian regimes will respond with increasing authoritarianism and violence (note how North Korea and Iran continue to drive toward nuclear weapons even against the threats of the worlds greatest nuclear superpower...don't want them to have nukes? Don't give them a reason to have them... :headbang: ) The CCP should not feel that it is being attacked, or it will step up its authoritarian tendencies. Isolating China economically, thereby making economic development there more difficult, thereby seriously undercutting one of the key goals of, and pillars of legitimacy of, the CCP is a great way to make civil/human rights conditions there much worse.

Does this mean that American corporations and businesses will have to cooperate with the Chinese government? Yes. Is this a less than optimal situation? Yes. Do the long term results (more moderate CCP making democratization easier/possible) still make this continued cooperation absolutely vital? Yes. The only purpose economic isolation will serve is to make the CCP even more hardline and authoritarian. It would be a civil/human rights disaster.

Given the chance, profits will serve principle perfectly well.

I am not surprised. I heard a democracy guy talk. He lives in exhile now and he said google was bad but yahoo was far worst.....

Fucking communists.

Fucking communists.

I agree. Do the patriotic thing (spelled lesser of evils) and surf with Google!

I agree. Do the patriotic thing (spelled lesser of evils) and surf with Google!

USA USA USA USA!

Originally posted by Article
But the watchdog conceded that the access code could also have been provided by Li, who is suspected of having been a police informer in the case.

Let's not hang Yahoo before all the facts are in. Let's wait until we have all the info -- and then hang them.

I have neither patience nor trust for any of these companies. Yahoo is just one of the sleazier members of a sleazy bunch. You could only say they are putting profits before principles if they had any principles. Their future profits lie with China because it is a massive and growing new market, it promises to be the world's biggest consumer of just about everything quite soon, and its authoritarian government will help them put in place -- and into international markets -- the kind of tracking and monitoring systems the large corporate interests have been wanting for years in order to track consumers, transactions and accounts, control media communications (especially about themselves), etc.

Democracy activists can use the internet to undermine authoritarian control and improve human and civil rights, but they should be under no illusions about the companies providing that access. Only time will tell which ones have any principles at all. In the meantime, trust no one.

Dissonant Cognition, that was good stuff. I will, however, comment on one thing you wrote:

As a result, the CCP would lose legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese people. What happens when the people lose faith in their political leadership? They rebel; that is, the political system destabilizes and perhaps even falls apart. How is an authoritarian government desperate to maintain political control likely to reply to such events? Human and civil rights abuses are going to get much worse than they already are.

I will agree that in instability, the Chinese Communist Party will only crack down even harder on its own civilians, but in such a state, it may have no ability to enact those laws. Remember, if the CCP is illegitimized, the people won't care if it gets more strict because they don't have to listen to them. Disorder and chaos can lead to revolutions, and here- in the absence of a legitimate power- a democratic government can be set up. It may be rough for a few years a la the French Revolution (no, not a pun), but the changes it will bring may be worth it.

Says that this is the third such case. I know we have discussed about this earlier...but there seems to be no change in Yahoo's policy. Do you think that this is ethically right for Yahoo?

I think not.

http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEN20060419125221&Title=Infotech&Topic=0&?headline=Yahoo~'sends'~internet~writer~to~jail

All the internet companies should be embarassed by their behavior regarding appeasing the Chinese government. But it appears Yahoo has been particularly egregious.

*snip*.

You would make Orwell confused.

We have to cooperate with the crackdowns of the authoritarian government to make it stronger so it will be less authoritarian and weaker. :headbang:

Fucking communists.

It's a totalitarian regime. It's not because they're communists. I believe several American ISPs won't let you type "politically sensitive" things after the PATRIOT act. Tell me how that's any different.

We have to cooperate with the crackdowns of the authoritarian government to make it stronger so it will be less authoritarian and weaker. :headbang:

The goal is not to make the CCP stronger. The goal is to demonstrate to the CCP that what it believes to be the possible concequences and risks of economic modernization and democratization are not necessarily so. Isolating China economically because we put "principles before profit" will serve only to make economic development there more difficult, thereby preventing the CCP from accomplishing one of its chief goals, thereby providing greater incentive for a worsening authoritarianism as the CCP tries to accomplish its goals in the way in which it is most comfortable. Additionally, the corelation between increasing economic development and increasing political stability and order is well observed. Increasing political stability and order (i.e. the prevention of a complete collapse of the state and/or violent revolution) will demonstrate to the CCP that relatively liberal Western-style economics will not necessarily result in the "anarchic" or "chaotic" conditions that it fears (and which the USSR did not survive).

The CCP does not exert authoritarian control without purpose or reason; it fears losing control of the political order as a result of economic modernization, while at the same time desiring that very economic modernization. If it can be demonstrated that market economics and democracy can exist without resulting in complete political collapse or revolution, then a major reason for authoritarian control is eliminated. The CCP has already demonstrated that it is willing to relax its authoritarian control if doing so will serve its goals of economic development -- observe increasing acceptance of the growing capitalist class within the party, the fact that state controlled enterprise represents the smallest portion of the Chinese economy, increasing acknowledgement of and provisions for protection of private property in Chinese law, membership of China in the World Trade Organization (demonstrating a willingness to trade some degree of state soverignty, and therefore control, for economic development).

So yes, we tollerate a certain degree of authoritarian control now, for the purpose of creating the foundational societial conditions (economic development and the continued rise of the capitalist class) necessary to begin discounting the continued use of authoritarian control later, because we know that the CCP is capable and willing to relax that control so long as certain economic goals are met.

Authoritarian regimes do not change over into liberal democratic states overnight; the necessary societal conditions must be created first. At the current moment, that means trying to work within an authoritarian system. I agree, this is hardly a perfect or ideal situation. But reality is like that.

*snip*

Again, you put Orwell to shame.

Play by their rules in hopes they will eventually let you win the game. Can you name a country that changed this way?

There are other options that either encouraging CCP authoritarianism or complete isolation of China.

I will agree that in instability, the Chinese Communist Party will only crack down even harder on its own civilians, but in such a state, it may have no ability to enact those laws. Remember, if the CCP is illegitimized, the people won't care if it gets more strict because they don't have to listen to them. Disorder and chaos can lead to revolutions, and here- in the absence of a legitimate power- a democratic government can be set up. It may be rough for a few years a la the French Revolution (no, not a pun), but the changes it will bring may be worth it.


I will rephrase slightly. The CCP has reason to relax its authoritarian control if it believes it is legitimate in the eyes of the people. The CCP believes that it can maintain legitimacy by accomplishing economic development and the growth of wealth (poverty is a very serious problem in China, afterall).

And while it may be true that violent revolution could result in the establishment of democratic government, it could just as easily result in continued authoritarian government. Especially among a political culture that has been accustomed to authoritarian government of one type or another for a relatively long time. And in the event of violent revolution, the CCP and other government institutions, like the police/military, are likely to react in whatever means they can, for however long they can, in a way that will result in massive suffering.

Revolution is best avoided as it is not a condition conducive to the enhancement of civil/human rights by any faction involved, and is likely to destroy those developments necessary to the eventual victory of democracy (economic development and the rise of the capitalist classes). What is probably best is to tollerate the CCP enough to prevent revolution and encourage further economic development, thereby encouraging the continued growth of the capitalist classes, thereby encouraging the continued movement of those with a stake in the liberal market process into Chinese politics and the Chinese state. Once that movement is sufficiently large, democracy is inevitable.

Says that this is the third such case. I know we have discussed about this earlier...but there seems to be no change in Yahoo's policy. Do you think that this is ethically right for Yahoo?

I think not.

http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEN20060419125221&Title=Infotech&Topic=0&?headline=Yahoo~'sends'~internet~writer~to~jail
Shame on Yahoo! :mad:

@Dissonant Cognition
That's utter bs :rolleyes:
If *all* the greedy US businesses would put principles before profits, the dictatorship government would quickly lose its power, and fall apart caused by the huge discontent of its peoples (just like the Ussr), and the people would be free.
However, since the money-grubbing US businesses don't give the slightest damn about human rights and such and are only interested in making as much profit as possible, this will only happen when easter and X-mas fall on the same day and it's raining young dogs outside. :rolleyes:
The only thing this does is making China more and more capitalist than it already is, showing it that you can buy *anything* with money regardless what or who it is, and that it's authotitarian rule works fine to achieve its goal, so it certainly won't decrease it, but rather increase it, since it works so well for them - and as they are getting richer and richer by the help of the US businesses, it gets ever easier for them to become more authoritarian.

Play by their rules in hopes they will eventually let you win the game.


Incorrect.

Play by their rules because doing so will create the conditions by which I win no matter what they think. The CCP believes that its best chance for maintaining control is to create wealth and economic development. I know that this isn't the case, in the long run: democracies best chance is a well developed economy and prosperous citizenry. As such, I do what is necessary now to make sure that China allows me to continue doing business there. And once the liberal market has its foot in the door, it is only a matter of time.

And again, the CCP has already demonstrated a willingness to reduce authoritarian control if doing so serves economic development. The fact of the matter is that the CCP has already resigned itself to the victory of the liberal market. I think the CCP would simply like to die of natural causes in relative peace, instead of on the end of a rope swinging over the public square.

Incorrect.

Play by their rules because doing so will create the conditions by which I win no matter what they think. The CCP believes that its best chance for maintaining control is to create wealth and economic development. I know that this isn't the case, in the long run. As such, I do what is necessary now to make sure that China allows me to continue doing business there. And once the liberal market has its foot in the door, it is only a matter of time.

And again, the CCP has already demonstrated a willingness to reduce authoritarian control if doing so serves economic development. The fact of the matter is that the CCP has already resigned itself to the victory of the liberal market. I think the CCP would simply like to die of natural causes in relative peace, instead of on the end of a rope swinging over the public square.

I note you avoid giving an example of where this strategy has worked.

You can't blame Yahoo! mainly because they could have their asses chomped off by China.

They are now partially, if not, mostly owned by China with the same rights as the USA, Canada, UK, etc. If such a country is threatening, although not openly to the public but obviously, to tear down their rep and such then they will oblige. Not to mention they could be made bankrupt by China ( And all they would have to do is use Google then ).

The reason why Google, however, hasn't done anything 'bad' ( or has, just wait 2 years and we'll find out ) is because I truely believe the Chinese Government doesn't know they have GMail...I don't even think they have GMail exported to Asia ( besides Japan ).

Anyways, Yahoo! is also a Corporate Giant and in order to remain so they will also do anything for a little side cash.

So for those who blame Communism, blame Capitalism too. Because both play in a roll for these things happening...lol watch I bet Nationstates will now be banned from China because of this thread :-P...maybe it already is.

I note you avoid giving an example of where this strategy has worked.

I note that the existance of an example does not necessarily have any bearing on the soundness of the strategy. The specific historical, cultural, and political realities of China are unique to China, and the specific historical, cultural, and political factors of the United States are unique to the United States.

If *all* the greedy US businesses would put principles before profits, the dictatorship government would quickly lose its power, and fall apart caused by the huge discontent of its peoples (just like the Ussr), and the people would be free.


The assumption that revolution will result in democratic freedom is not necessarily a safe one. Potentially violent competition between differing factions can just as easily result in the reestablishment of authoritarianism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10799315&postcount=15). And the situation is not necessarily comparable to what occured in the USSR. The USSR did not fall apart simply because the people wanted such. The USSR was allowed to fall apart because the integrity of the Communist Party was directly subverted by leadership from within (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorbachev), resulting in a lack of official resistance to the government collapse. Since the Chinese Communist Party actively desires to prevent what occured in the USSR from happening in China, such passive non-resistance is not likely to occur there. (Edit: Unless, of course, the CCP can by made/encouraged to moderate itself from the inside. The best hope for that is to encourage the continued flow of Western-oriented/friendly capitalist classes and business interests into the CCP, as is already occuring as economic development continues. As such, the key to moderation and opening of the CCP lies in continued business and economic relationships between China and the outside world; disengaging China in the name of "principle" will serve the exact opposite purpose).


However, since the money-grubbing US businesses don't give the slightest damn about human rights and such and are only interested in making as much profit as possible,


Is this why US businesses like Google raised privacy concerns against the United States Government's desire to collect search data, and resisted doing so until forced to comply by order of a judge? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4821858.stm) Is this why Bill Gates (Microsoft being another key figure in the China issue) donates huges sums of money to various charitable causes? Neither of them care about people?

So for those who blame Communism, blame Capitalism too. Because both play in a roll for these things happening...


Except that the corelation between capitalism and liberal democracy tends to be much stronger than that between communism and liberal democracy. Which is why continuing to encourage capitalist economic development in China is probably, in the long run, a good idea.

I will rephrase slightly. The CCP has reason to relax its authoritarian control if it believes it is legitimate in the eyes of the people. The CCP believes that it can maintain legitimacy by accomplishing economic development and the growth of wealth (poverty is a very serious problem in China, afterall).

I doubt it. Not once have I ever seen a regime loosen controls voluntarily. They all do it from force. Yes, there have been liberal authoritarian rulers, but never did any of them willingly divest governmental control.

And while it may be true that violent revolution could result in the establishment of democratic government, it could just as easily result in continued authoritarian government. Especially among a political culture that has been accustomed to authoritarian government of one type or another for a relatively long time. And in the event of violent revolution, the CCP and other government institutions, like the police/military, are likely to react in whatever means they can, for however long they can, in a way that will result in massive suffering.

Revolution is best avoided as it is not a condition conducive to the enhancement of civil/human rights by any faction involved, and is likely to destroy those developments necessary to the eventual victory of democracy (economic development and the rise of the capitalist classes). What is probably best is to tollerate the CCP enough to prevent revolution and encourage further economic development, thereby encouraging the continued growth of the capitalist classes, thereby encouraging the continued movement of those with a stake in the liberal market process into Chinese politics and the Chinese state. Once that movement is sufficiently large, democracy is inevitable.

Obviously, if the CCP is threatenned they're going to react swiftly. Any government that's under threat will react swiftly.

I also doubt- as I said before- that the CCP will inevitably establish democracy. It's not going to want to establish a system where presumably it could lose power- nobody will unless it's under threat. Furthermore, if China's economic situation improves, it will give the CCP more incentive to tighten governmental controls, because then it can say that it brought prosperity to China. Obviously, it will do nothing to hamper business- but expecting it to "allow" democracy will be far-fetched when it would have so much to lose in that case.

I doubt it. Not once have I ever seen a regime loosen controls voluntarily. They all do it from force. Yes, there have been liberal authoritarian rulers, but never did any of them willingly divest governmental control.


The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Chile both come to mind. Sure, in the case of the USSR there was an attempted coup d'etat in 1991, but the individual republics had been declaring their desire for independence since the 1980s. One of the chief reasons why the collapse of the USSR was so remarkable (and completely unpredicted) was the fact that the collapse was so peaceful, quiet, and unopposed. Chile is also an excellent example of the moderating effects of liberal economic development. Sure, initially it suffered under a savage authoritarian regime beginnning in the 1970s, but that very same regime eventually permitted increasingly free market economics, including associated behaviors like freedom of association, trade unions, etc. Eventually those reforms led to that regime's downfall and the election of new leadership; Chile is now a stable and democratic state. Observe the loosening of controls leading to the eventual downfall of the authoritarian regime.



I also doubt- as I said before- that the CCP will inevitably establish democracy. It's not going to want to establish a system where presumably it could lose power- nobody will unless it's under threat.


Ah, but as the CCP becomes further and further populated by the rising capitalist/business class, as it is being so populated right now, the individual members of the CCP will have an increasing personal interest in pursuing closer relationships with Western economic and political institutions, and the practices thereof. For instance, China joined the WTO only 5 years ago. Historical factors had consistantly resulted in China being extremely protective of the concept of national soverignty. But even so, economic development and pressures eventually caused it go give up a chunk of that soverignty by joining an international economic organization. That's a big deal, and I think is indicitive of the fact that the CCP is willing to give up control if other goals can be met as a result. Again, another result of the loosening of control (allowing the rise of capitalist economics) leading to a decreasing ability to exert control.


Furthermore, if China's economic situation improves, it will give the CCP more incentive to tighten governmental controls, because then it can say that it brought prosperity to China.


Except that increasing government control, in the long run, runs contrary to the purposes of economic development and modernization (this is why the CCP has been decreasing control of the economic process -- state-owned and operated enterprise is the minority population in the Chinese economy). Tightening its fist contrary to its own interests is not a smart thing to do. And as I have already said, actual events have shown that improving economic conditions can lead to a relaxation of control: increasing capitalist/business membership in the CCP, membership in the WTO and international engagement in general (necessitating a surrender of some degree of national soverignty or control), provisions for private property and other foundations of liberal economic order begininng to at least appear in the rhetoric of Chinese politics and law, etc.


Obviously, it will do nothing to hamper business- but expecting it to "allow" democracy will be far-fetched when it would have so much to lose in that case.

Again, the vast corelation between democracy and advanced capitalist economics suggests that increasing democratization is a necessary and vital step that the CCP must eventually accept if it wants to take economic modernization in China to the same level as exists in the United States or the states of the European Union (and China's insistance on a multipolar international order means the CCP wants to do exactly that). As individuals within Chinese politics gain an increasing stake in economic modernization, democratization can very well become extremely appealing.

I doubt the ISP knew anything about the nature of the charges intended. ISPs receive many such requests, and for all they know, he was just another internet pervert. I doubt the Chinese explain their reasons on the warrant.

I have tried typing up several messages, but the following is the one that makes the most sense: Go to Hell, not America, Yahoo!

I doubt the ISP knew anything about the nature of the charges intended. ISPs receive many such requests, and for all they know, he was just another internet pervert. I doubt the Chinese explain their reasons on the warrant.

Possible....but I think the company must have known for what purposes the govt is asking for the info.....it is not like the Chicom govt is going after internet perverts...

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Chile both come to mind. Sure, in the case of the USSR there was an attempted coup d'etat in 1991, but the individual republics had been declaring their desire for independence since the 1980s. One of the chief reasons why the collapse of the USSR was so remarkable (and completely unpredicted) was the fact that the collapse was so peaceful, quiet, and unopposed. Chile is also an excellent example of the moderating effects of liberal economic development. Sure, initially it suffered under a savage authoritarian regime beginnning in the 1970s, but that very same regime eventually permitted increasingly free market economics, including associated behaviors like freedom of association, trade unions, etc. Eventually those reforms led to that regime's downfall and the election of new leadership; Chile is now a stable and democratic state. Observe the loosening of controls leading to the eventual downfall of the authoritarian regime.

There's a difference between what Mikhail Gorbachev did and what the CCP is doing. Gorbachev was a visionary who wanted to bring more political and economic freedom to the Soviet Union, the CCP is simply not interested in political freedom. As far as Augusto Pinochet is concerned, he too was uninterested in political freedom- what he did backfired. Faced with protests calling for democratization and internal coups within his own junta, he issued a plebiscite featuring only himself on the ballot that was meant to provide legitimacy to his government- instead, 55% of Chileans voted against him, so he had to step down. In both cases, the authoritarian regime didn't loosen solely because of the economy- it loosened because of a visionary government (Gorbachev) or internal pressures (Pinochet).

Ah, but as the CCP becomes further and further populated by the rising capitalist/business class, as it is being so populated right now, the individual members of the CCP will have an increasing personal interest in pursuing closer relationships with Western economic and political institutions, and the practices thereof. For instance, China joined the WTO only 5 years ago. Historical factors had consistantly resulted in China being extremely protective of the concept of national soverignty. But even so, economic development and pressures eventually caused it go give up a chunk of that soverignty by joining an international economic organization. That's a big deal, and I think is indicitive of the fact that the CCP is willing to give up control if other goals can be met as a result. Again, another result of the loosening of control (allowing the rise of capitalist economics) leading to a decreasing ability to exert control.

It is true that historically China has guarded its borders and its culture ferociously- however, I'm not yet convinced that this economic interchange will lead to a cultural one. Considering that Yahoo! and Google are prevented from showing pages that discuss democracy I'd argue that the CCP are less apt to adopt Western practices, and are actually suppressing them- unless it satisfies their own interest. This incident shows that the CCP is not going to acquiesce to the demands of an American company simply because it's American- rather, the CCP is saying that the Americans can come as long as they play by their rules, and they are rules they're going to enforce.

Furthermore, China's interests in the WTO and other trade organizations have more to do with manipulating the West for their own gain instead of an actual acceptance of Western ideals. China has for years called itself a Third World country just so it can receive foreign aid, and it allows the Western companies into its borders because it knows that if they can make the West literally build their own country, they won't have to do it themselves. If China were really interested in promoting Western ideals, it wouldn't set up the "Great Firewall of China" and it wouldn't massacre students at Tiananmen Square because it would tell the West their way of life is not welcome- the Chinese just want their money.

Except that increasing government control, in the long run, runs contrary to the purposes of economic development and modernization (this is why the CCP has been decreasing control of the economic process -- state-owned and operated enterprise is the minority population in the Chinese economy). Tightening its fist contrary to its own interests is not a smart thing to do. And as I have already said, actual events have shown that improving economic conditions can lead to a relaxation of control: increasing capitalist/business membership in the CCP, membership in the WTO and international engagement in general (necessitating a surrender of some degree of national soverignty or control), provisions for private property and other foundations of liberal economic order begininng to at least appear in the rhetoric of Chinese politics and law, etc.

...

Again, the vast corelation between democracy and advanced capitalist economics suggests that increasing democratization is a necessary and vital step that the CCP must eventually accept if it wants to take economic modernization in China to the same level as exists in the United States or the states of the European Union (and China's insistance on a multipolar international order means the CCP wants to do exactly that). As individuals within Chinese politics gain an increasing stake in economic modernization, democratization can very well become extremely appealing.

It can decrease control on economics all it wants- that will have no bearing on the ability by the Chinese government to control society and/or politics. Just because it allows Fiat to import cars, Yahoo! to import its E-Mail service or McDonald's its food doesn't mean it's going to suddenly allow political protest. In fact, the argument could be made that China is simply opening up its borders- the products are still tightly regulated (as evidenced by the "Great Firewall of China").

I've read several times that capitalism and democracy are co-existent, and- although it's a central theory for my upcoming Political Geography exam- it's complete and utter rubbish. Having a free market doesn't mean that the people are free- it just means that there's a free market. You're still controlling what people can buy, you're just not controlling who can sell the products and at what price. I will concede that in the future you may get capitalists who will demand greater say in the government because they'd like to be able to control their own interests, but this may just involve the replacement of the CCP with a wealthy oligarchy (i.e., the revival of a property-based democracy and thus not the Western-style democracy that you suggest) and/or be achieved in large part because of ideologues. In either case, it's still "inevitable" that either situation will arise- as long as Western companies feel "the rules" are benefitting them they will see no reason to seek to change them, meaning China's political liberalization may still be very far off.