The 21th century is loaded with global imaginations. Some boast the power of internet breaking down national boundaries and turning the world into a global village. The Olympic Games has become a global event promoted by many countries as the Olympic Spirit: Fair play and friendship. Yet, over the past six months the controversies around China has posed a pressing fact: The Olympic Games is the golden opportunities for government to boost up nationalism and reinforce national identity. But internet is not helpful in facilitating cultural exchange and discussion. On the contrary, it is a catalyst for nationalism.
Power of Internet
On April 10, an internet user named “Shuiyin” put up a post on “Maopu” (http://www.mop.com) titled “Boycott of French product. Starting from Carrefour”. Since the riot of Tibet in March, it has stimulated many pro-Tibet groups to protest or even blockade the Olympic torch relay. This is even worse in Paris, France. Since Shuiyin’s post, the message of boycott movement was circulated on internet in a short time. Then it developed into substantial action.
Message delivery on internet is extremely fast and convenient. It matches the simple content of the boycott movement. This kind of movement does not need too many arguments. It is usually based on self-evident emotion. The action is simple and low-cost. “Carrefour is everywhere. Everyone could boycott it,” said Shuiyin. The logic of nationalist logic is so simple and direct that it translated the anti-Beijing Olympic Games action in nationalist way into something like this: “Actually France treats China and the Olympic Games in such a way. From today onwards, I don’t go to Carrefour. Please join me to boycott France! Boycott Carrefour!” “Actually” is self-evident. And Carrefour is equivalent to France. Thoe anti-Olympic Games French people are quickly read as “France”. And the Beijing Olympic Games and torch relay is even easier to be imagined as “China”.
Except the force from individuals, some even attempted to consolidate particular community networks. For example, compared to the boycott of Carrefour, Anti-CNN, formed earlier, made use of the hostile emotion towards the wrong and distorted coverage of Tibetan riot by CNN to form a new forum. In the commercial portal website (such as the military forum in China.com) or pro-government “patriotic” forum (such as “Strong Nation Forum” in People Web), there are already a lot of breeding grounds for nationalism. Now the online landscape of nationalism is even rich, complicated and grassroots.
In these seemingly grassroots turbulences, the capital of the newly emerging internet business also gets involved. The portal websites, looking for higher hit rate, are very active in putting up a lot of posts and news instigating natonalists on front page. The columnist Chang Ping wrote an article titled “Tibet: Truth and Nationalist Sentiment”on April 3. He called for a more open environment for opinion in order to figuring out the truth about Tibet. However, this article is read as supporting anti-China forces or even traitors. China.com had put up the posts criticizing Chang Ping. The attacks on him and Southern Metropole Daily (the media he works for) came out immediately on internet. Almost at the same time, Sina.com launched “Against Splitting up, Protecting holy torch: Signature Campaign for Chinese all over the World”. It used a way simpler than sending post to associate protecting Olympic torch with national sovereignty. The portal websites echoed the nationalist sentiment. The Chinese internet economy jumps on the wagon of nationalism.
Nationalism and government power
Although internet nationalism is so grassroots and populist that the government feels alert to, it is not totally independent of government. The government power try to articulate itself with it directly or inderctly.
First of all, government’s censorship on opinion and news remains strong. Along with the internet development, its control of traditional media extends into internet to form the Project of Jingduen which monitor and filter messages around the clock. The rise of internet nationalism emerged against the background of a wide variety of government restriction and imperfect information flow. For example, one of the enemies of internet nationalism is Dali Lamma in exile. A lot of internet users’ hostility towards him comes from the China government’s negative propaganda about the Tibetan government in exile. For example, many officials and media said that the riot was initiated by Dali Lamma. He is portrayed as a conspirator.
Yet this opinion is even quite far away from the real relationship between China government and Tibetan government in exile. Many internet users thought that Dali Lamma has been splitting up China and China government should not and will not make contact with him. But most China’s media, online and offline, rarely mentioned a fact: Since 2002, the representatives of Dali Lamma and China government representatives has had meetings for six times. The seventh one was originally scheduled as December last year or January 2008. For unknown reasons, it was postponed to May.
Internet nationalism does not respond to real politics much. Instead they are very concerned with western media whose criticisms of China and China government instigate many internet users’ nerve. CNN’s coverage of Tibet and Jack Cafferty’s discriminatory comments are typical examples. These western media have a lot of stereotypes about China. But internet nationalists are fond of dancing to the tune of these media and making a lot of simplistic dichotomies.
How do the government deal with these nationalist forces? It seems complicated. It keeps alert to whether it would be out of control. It also takes advantage of it and makes use of it to repress freedom of speech and some opinion leaders.
Chang Ping is a good example. His article was published in the Chinese version of Financial Times rather than in Southern Metropolis Daily. But the Beijing Evening News (a pro-Central Propaganda Department paper) stirred up the controversies and published the article titled “Southern Metropolis Chang Ping’s freedom of spreading rumour “. It attributed Chang Ping’s view to spreading rumour and targetted the Southern Metropolis Daily.
All media in China have connections with party or government departments. Highlighting Chang Ping’s relationship with Southern Metropolis Daily gave him and the company a lot of pressure. It was alleged that Chang Ping was sacked. The Southern Metropolis Group is seen as the camp of liberals and has been sufferring repression from above. The government might takes advantage of the nationalistic opinions to control media. This new development is noteworthy.
Lots of Hong Kong media see the recent nationalism as a phenomenon of “Angry Youth”. The anti-Japanese action some years ago might be seen as initiated by a handful of emotional youth. But in last six months, what happened on internet could show that nationalism is a constant rather than a special case in China media and opinion formation. It is also a part of cultural politics. In order to actualize free and critical cultural space, one’s opponents are not simply government but also grassroots and populist nationalism.