It's not just China

Leshi Chen

Professor Craig

UC World Politics

It’s not just China

Public opinion in the United States regards Chinese media as strongly influencing public opinions but people often don't realize that American media also plays a strong role in shaping public opinions.

Recently, China is trying to step in and interfere the media again. With the name of “culture reform”, Chinese government is trying to “regulate” the traditional media such as newspapers and TV, as well as the Internet. It’s obvious that the Chinese government feels the pressure from “Arab Spring”. And since the high-speed train accident in this past summer, the Chinese government has received many criticisms from the microbloggers. On October 26, “Chinese media carried the full text of a document setting a broad direction for cultural reform policy that the Communist Party of China's Central Committee adopted on Oct. 18.” The document asserts that the "popularization of the Internet has harmed its ability to guide public opinion in the right direction”, which indicates that the government will be paying efforts to restrict the information that the public is getting. Chinese government is running an Internet censorship system, which plays a role of watchdog online. It automatically deletes any critical information or comments of the government policy. The system can also prevent people from accessing overseas websites. The document is showing the increase of interference of Chinese government into the media with the saying that "guiding public opinion in the right direction will bring happiness to the party and the masses." From the U.S. perspective, this initiative “clarified an intention to use party organs, news agencies and TV as primary means of providing news and other information, while consolidating tabloids circulated in cities and online outlets.”

In this case, Chinese government is trying to turn the media into its tool. Media has always played a significant role in the society. People acquire information from all over the world through the media; therefore media has a huge impact on how people view the issues around the world. If the government has a good handle of the media, that can empower itself. As we can see, Chinese government is using the media and trying to manipulate the public opinions towards it. The government prevents people from getting any negative aspects of it so that it can obtain the trust from the public. This helps the government to stabilize both the country and the Communist Party since the public is convinced that the government is able to handle everything nicely and benefit the whole country.

While the United States is criticizing China for using the media to shape the public opinions, the U.S. itself is actually doing the same thing.

The battle at Tet during the Vietnam War is a good example of the U.S. using the media to shape the public opinion and receive support from the people. At the beginning of the Vietnam War, the U.S. government was trying to keep the transparency of the war for the people. Reporters were allowed to go anywhere they wanted. “The Vietnam war was the first time that reporters reported on American units that lacked discipline, used drugs on the battlefield, and had US soldiers questioning war aims while the war was ongoing.7 These stories, though factual, were viewed by the military as ‘negative’.” But then, the negative report on the Tet offensive by the media changed the U.S.’s openness towards the media. The public was confused by the purpose of the U.S. going to war with Vietnam; a debate broke out after the Tet battle. Suddenly, Vietnam War became a controversial issue within the country; therefore the government started to think about their media policy.

After Tet in 1968, the reports began to be about the difference between what Washington said versus what reporters in Vietnam saw. The media discredited military official reports on the progress of the war, thus creating a divide that would last for decades. What did the US military learn from this? They definitely learned that they needed the support of the American people—trying to hide two parts of Clausewitz’s triangle from the third didn’t work. It became the story. What the military failed to see was the importance of the media as a conduit to the people.

As a result, Vietnam War became the last time that the U.S. journalists had the freedom to access information they want without American censorship.

Nowadays, “ Media omissions, distortion, inaccuracy and bias in the US is something acknowledged by many outside the USA, and is slowly realized more and more inside the US.” Both Conservatives and liberals condemn the medias of being bias. The problem of polarization is driven to influence the all-news cable television channels and blogs; many of them are aggressively partisan. Fox television, as an overtly conservative orientation, is one of the great examples of media polarization. Due to the bias of the US media, it is difficult for the citizens to obtain open and objective views of any issues related to their own country.

The path for journalists or citizens to express their opinions towards the government has always been tough in China.

There is no press law that governs the protection of journalists or punishment of those who attack them. Instead, vague provisions in the criminal code and state-secrets legislation are routinely used to imprison journalists and other citizens for the peaceful expression of views that the CCP considers objectionable.

All these realities have shown how Chinese government has violated Chinese citizens’ rights to protect its sovereignty.

Under the protection of freedom of press and speech, U.S. citizens are free to express their views towards the government. “Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are almost always permitted.” However, the United States government did violate the constitution. In 1798, the U.S. government enacted the Sedition Act.

The Sedition Act (officially An Act in Addition to the Act Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States"; ch. 74, 1 Stat. 596) made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or certain officials.

Even though the U.S. government is not enforcing any punishments on people who criticize the government. There is not doubt that the government uses the media to advocate for itself. It is obvious that the U.S. government and the media have maintained a corporative and antagonistic relationship.

Media has a huge impact on political issues. In order to receive support form the public, different countries are using different ways to convince the public their abilities to bring the prosperity and stability in. Governments tend to use media to present the best aspect of themselves. While western countries are criticizing China for depriving people’s rights from getting information, they should also think of themselves because they are all doing the same thing. China is just doing it in a more obvious way. If the western countries do not agree with what China is doing which is what they are doing too, do they think this phenomena of protecting their own government is violating the international rules?

Work Cited:

Gaku Shimada. " Beijing tightening its grip on some media." The Nikkei Weekly, 14 November 2011. LexisNexis. Web. 18 November 2011.

"CNN Effect." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

Belknap, Margaret H. The CNN Effect: Strategic Enabler or Operational Risk? (PDF). U.S. Army War College Strategy Research Project. 2001.

Goldstein, Joshua S., and Jon C. Pevehouse. International Relations. New York: Longman, 2008. Print.

林一晨. "[学子论文]美国政府与媒体的博弈 ." 11 12 2009. 人民网. 27 11 2011.

Bennett, Isabella. "Media Censorship in China." 07 03 2011. Council on Foreign Relations. 27 11 2011.

Freedom House. "Map of Press Freedom." 2011. Freedom House. 27 11 2011.

Shah, Anup. "Media in the United States." 27 10 2009. Global Issue. 27 11 2011.

Wikipedia. Alien and Sedition Acts. 22 11 2011. 27 11 2011.

Wilipedia. Freedom of speech in the United States. 14 11 2011. 27 11 2011.

The Impact of an Unstable Global Economy on Non-Communicable Disease (Extra Credit Post)

Today, I read a really interesting article entitled, "The Growing Impact of Globalization for Health and Public Health Practice," that related Public Health to foreign policy. The aspect of the article that I am going to share with all of you as an extra credit blog is the way in which foreign policy overlooks the growing importance of non-communicable disease in global affairs.

Public Health focuses on population health rather than individual health. Part of population health is the spread of disease. Diseases that spread from person to person are considered communicable diseases. Communicable diseases are the types of diseases most commonly found on headlines—the diseases that cause panic. These headline-making diseases are, for instance, HIV/AIDS, Influenza, and Tuberculosis. The spreading of disease is an age-old problem, but communicable diseases result in such panic now because they spread especially quickly in the face of globalization. Increased trade, travel, and flow of people results in a rapid spread of communicable diseases that is difficult to control (Labonté). Social, cultural, and economic interconnectedness create an increasingly transnational rather than national distribution of communicable disease.

In contrast, non-communicable diseases are types of diseases that cannot be spread from person to person. These types of diseases include, depression, cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity (Labonté). Although these types of diseases do make it into the news on occasion, they stir up less panic because they are internal, individual diseases that cannot be passed from person to person.

The difference in nature of communicable and non-communicable diseases causes foreign policy experts to focus less on non-communicable diseases in comparison to communicable disease in the international-realm. Communicable diseases fit much better than non-communicable diseases into the “existing security framework” in global policy (Labonté). For instance, through their various effects, communicable diseases create a direct threat to the state. Whereas non-communicable diseases are something that cannot be obviously “identified, targeted, and contained or killed,” communicable diseases can be (Labonté). Foreign policy experts’ pre-existing security measures are built to find societal dangers and get rid of them, but non-communicable diseases are harder to spot and present a different type of complexity. Moreover, communicable diseases pose immediate threats to society (Labonté). In the case of the H1N1 virus, policy measures were instantly created in order to curb the flow of the communicable virus. On a national level, people were advised on how to avoid getting the sickness, and on an international scale, travel between Mexico (the place of origin of the disease) and other countries was slowed, if not altogether stopped for a period of time. This timely and productive reaction to the H1N1 virus is a prime example of the way in which foreign policy officials are well prepared for and highly focused on the dangers of the spread of communicable diseases.

In no way do I criticize the importance of international efforts to stop the spread of communicable disease. In 2010 alone, 1.4 million people died from Tuberculosis ("2011/2012 Tuberculosis Global Facts"). Without a doubt, communicable diseases pose a major threat to society. However, there also needs to be an increased international effort to lower the rates of non-communicable diseases. In 2008, out of “57 million global deaths… 36 million, or 63% were due to [non-communicable diseases], principally cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancers and chronic respiratory diseases”("Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Disease 2010"). Evidently, non-communicable diseases place a heavy burden on the health of the international population. The main sources of the causes of non-communicable diseases are, tobacco use, not enough exercise, misuse of alcohol, unhealthy dietary habits, increased blood pressure, obesity and overweight conditions, high cholesterol, and cancerous infections ("Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Disease 2010"). H1N1 may present difficulties in creating a vaccine or tracking its path from person-to-person, but once the vaccine is available, there is a tangible solution. I think the primary issue that deters foreign policy officials from focusing on non-communicable disease is because the majority of non-communicable diseases are grounded in choice and the type of lifestyle an individual decides to partake in. Foreign policy experts may not believe that choice is their problem—why do they have to be the people to deal with people making poor decisions? This mindset is somewhat misguided.

Many of the issues that non-communicable diseases are derived from are based in foreign affairs, especially the global economy. The authors of the article, “The Growing Impact of Globalization for Health and Public Health Practice,” argue that global economic integration results in economic “insecurity, inequality, and vulnerability” (Labonté). The authors claim that because of the vastness of the global economy, citizens’ lifestyles are made unstable. Specifically, this instability comes from increased urbanization, transnational food corporations, increased flow of tobacco and alcohol, and the general spread of globalization of the Western lifestyle. These facets of globalization on top of general economic insecurity (unemployment, financial stress, etc.) result in unhealthy lifestyle choices that spiral into a range of non-communicable diseases from depression, to diabetes, to obesity (Labonté). I would even argue that in many cases these unhealthy lifestyles are not a matter of choice. If McDonalds is the only cheap food within a reasonable distance, then this is the only dining option that people will have. Likewise, if economic conditions are unstable, people may become depressed, causing them to engage in harmful activities that they would not have otherwise chosen such as, smoking cigarettes. Stress related to economic insecurity also heightens the stress hormone, cortisol in people’s bodies, which can cause high blood pressure and other cardiovascular issues. Because of the tie between the state of the global economy and non-communicable diseases, it seems in the best interest of the international community for foreign policy experts to give increased attention to non-communicable diseases.

Not only is it in the best interest of foreign policy experts and officials as well as states in general to focus on non-communicable disease, but it is also a matter of human rights. In class, we attempted to define what a right is, and I believe that people have the right to good health. Even though states and international actors cannot control all non-communicable diseases because of the impact of human choice on this type of disease, by giving more attention to health security and development, the high rate of non-communicable diseases would fall (Labonté). An example of health security is for states and foreign policy experts to focus on stabilizing the impacts of the shifting global economy on people’s health. By ensuring stability, rates of depression and cardiovascular related diseases would likely decrease. Additionally, development efforts are a way to curb non-communicable diseases. Developing methods to educate and empower citizens are ways to increase economic growth and stability, which in turn, can only improve people’s mental and emotional health (Labonté). Non-communicable diseases are easy to overlook because they do not scream “urgency.” However, with an effort to increase economic security on an international scale, the incidence and prevalence of non-communicable diseases will decrease.

In order to combat the problems associated with both communicable disease and non-communicable diseases various professionals need to team up. The point of this post was not to blame foreign policy officials for the rates of non-communicable diseases. Instead, this post is meant to bring attention to a major societal problem that is not inconceivable to combat. Foreign policy officials, public health workers, and clinicians must work together to create a comprehensive solution to the way in which an unstable economy degrades the state of human health. Experts in areas of global economics as well as global health need to treat non-communicable diseases rather than blame the issue on people’s choices.

Sources:

"2011/2012 Tuberculosis Global Facts." Tuberculosis (TB). World Health Organization,

2011. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. .

"Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Disease 2010." WHO Library Cataloguing-

in-Publication Data (2011): 1-176. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.

Labonté, Ronald, Katia Mohindra, and Ted Schrecker. "The Growing Impact of

Globalization for Health and Public Health Practice." Annual Review of Public

Health (2011): 1-27. Web. .

Overpopulation Dilemma

China’s One Child Policy

China development planners during the 1970s realize they faced one huge crucial problem when they were mapping out China’s future development. In 1970 China already had an enormous population of 829.9 million and had a population growth rate of 33.43(per 1000 people). Officials and government planners in the Chinese government knew that they would not have enough food or natural resources if the growth rate continued at this pace. For their government was already massively stressed trying to manage and support its massive population. One reason for China’s enormous population and growth rate was its dependence on agriculture. This was further stress under Mao’s Communist government during the Great Leap Forward and the transfer of people into communal farms. The majority of people in China during this time period were peasants located in rural China were they worked on farms in small villages. The hardship of this lifestyle made it incredibly important to have a large family due to several reasons. One reason for this is because having a large family meant having a large workforce to work with the land with. Another reason for this is that it ensured the survival of the family and that there bloodline would continue. Strong emphasis was placed in Chinese culture in having sons rather than daughter because they were more physically fit to work the land. Along with the fact that it would be the sons who would eventually take care of the parents due to the fact that daughters would move away to get married.

Thus the one child policy program was introduced into China during 1978 to help combat this crisis. It stated that the majority ethnic Hans couples were only allowed to have one child, while allowing exemptions for several cases, including rural couples, ethnic minorities, and if the first child was born with disability. This development program was carried out by the Chinese national government but it was enforced at the local level. People were coerce into obeying the policy due to several reasons; such as being fine thousands of dollars or being shunned from jobs if they did not comply. Repeat offenders were subject to forced abortions, sterilization and taking the child away from the family. It is estimated that the one child policy from 1978 to 2009 has prevented over 250 million births in China that would have been 250 million more people to take care of.

I would argue that similar population control methods while negative is needed in many countries around the world; such as in countries like India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda. While I understand the topic is highly controversial and that it is seen by a large amount of people in a negative light. I suggest that it is a necessary evil if the human species is going to continue to survive into future. This is because governments around the world are already taxed enough with trying to provide with their population, and with their high growth rate this would further tax their system. The world population is already at 7 billion people, the U.N estimates that it will hit 8 billion by the middle 2020s. With the world’s population continuing to increase, demand for natural resources will increasing become harder to satiate. For example resources like petroleum and fish stocks are rapidly depleting and if not carefully managed will out run out within a couple generations.

Due to this a large amount of conflict in the world has risen from the overpopulation dilemma and will only intensify as the human population continues to massively grow. Land and resource conflicts are becoming more common as countries and people try to find increasing limited space around the world. For example the conflict in the Amazon rainforest between the native Indians living in the forest and the farmers/ logging companies highlights this problem. Farmers are finding it harder to acquire open fertile land in Brazil so they are resorting to cutting and burning down the rain forest in which these native Indians live. The loggers as well are running out of unprotected forest from which to gather timber and with massive demand for timber are turning to cutting down the rainforest for their timber.

A number of theorists have already argued for more countries around the world to adopt population control methods. Thomas Malthus was one of the first major scholars to argue this concept in his book “An Essay on the Principle of Population”. In this book Malthus argued that the human population would outgrow the pace at which the human population could grow food. His solution to population problems were two kinds of checks, preventive and positive checks. Positive checks are things like war, famines and disease that help bring the human population down. Cleary positive checks are thrown out as they are too extreme and would hurt more people than it would help. Preventive checks are things like contraceptives, abstinence and abortions that prevent more people from being born into the population. Preventive checks could be more easily applied in the world to slow down the global population rate to manageable levels.

These are already widespread in first world countries and I proposed that a major effort be made to make it more widespread in the rest of the world. More funding could be sent to the WHO to make it easier and cheaper to get birth control in 2^nd and 3^rd world countries. Aid money could also be used to better educate the masses on why it is necessary and beneficial to use it. Or an IGO could be setup to handle this task. While I realize that culture is a huge barrier to this, with more education I believe that cultures will come to the realization that it more beneficial to use birth control methods rather than preserving their culture. A major example of this would be the Roman Catholic Church with their change on their stance on the issue of using condoms. Pope Benedict XVI has come out in favor of condoms and now endorses their use of them.

Another solution to this dilemma is that the U.N could set up a reward system for countries that have population issues to lower their growth rate in exchange for more aid. For example India could get a certain amount of money for development projects if they bring down their growth rate from 1.41 % to .5%. This way it encourages countries with enormous populations to lower their growth to more sustainable levels and would be reward with money they could use to support this sustainable growth. This would obviously be a transnational global effort to solve this dilemma and would obviously undergo a lot of scrutiny, but there are also things individual states can do on their own countries. For example they could put a limit on the number of children a family can have or perhaps they place a tax for families going over a certain number of children. It would still be greatly beneficial to individual states to reduce their population growth because it would ease the strain place on their natural resources and welfare system.

This is an issue that cannot be ignored by the world for much longer, as it is a driving force behind numerous global issues. In a couple decades humanity success will be largely dictated by the decisions or indecisions we make today concerning population growth. I am curious to see if there is any grassroots citizen’s movement that could perhaps attempt to deal with this dilemma? If so would it be better suited to deal with this developmental issue than individual states or transnational system? However, the major question is to see if the global population will become more willing to implement these policies or if they are still stuck in the old mind set. Then I would propose that more research be done on how governments can convince there populations that these measure are not only beneficial but necessary for the future of the human population.