China Accuses U.S. of Cyberwarfare
wired.com
wired.com
Their standard response to any criticism is to dig through things which have happened in the past as a result of US action, make huge leaps of logic, and then justify whatever it is they did in terms of that.
Never mind the right or the wrong of the issue...
I guess that's the sin/shame culture difference. For them it doesn't matter what they did, it matters that they got caught. And justifying it in terms of what someone else did means they regain "honor" or whatever the fuck it is they're trying to do...
After reviewing the 60 years history of PRC, no they don't.
The CCP is called TuGong or TuBaLu by the population for a reason, which literally means 'the party of hick bandits'
I think this is the wrong question to ask. More like, "Do they care at all how they are perceived in the West?"
And the answer to that question has to be a resounding "NO"-- and for good reason.
Attempts at 'real diplomacy' (define as you will) are for nations which have reason to fear the repercussions of their actions. For the CCP, no such fear exists, nor should it. What's the worst any nation will do in retaliation to anything China has done throughout this whole affair, including, but not limited to, lying about what happened?
What is the United States or anyone else going to do? Embargo CHINA? Risk war (cyber or real-world) WITH CHINA? Obviously not. We need them too much; if we couldn't trade with China, the standard of living in the US would plummet, tons and tons of American corporations would go under, and countless Americans would be out of work because of it. Dislike the CCP for their ideological differences though we may, we'd never do anything more than slap them on the wrist (in 2010, anyway...2030 is a different story).
The CCP knows they're untouchable. That's why they act the way they do.
edit: Sorry about the caps lock. I'm a noob here and don't know how to italicize or bold yet. :( Halp, anyone?
edit #2: In the paragraph which begins, "Attempts at...": When I say, "For the CCP, no such fear exists, nor should it," I do NOT mean to say that it is a good thing for any nation to have license to act in this way. Rather, it was my intent to say that the CCP is correct to believe they can get away with such actions without risking serious repercussion.
That being said, I can understand how this would make sense for an audience in China. China was ruined by one revolution after another for the last hundred years, each time under an idealist with a new promise of salvation, people have inevitably become cynical to the idea of violent changes.
You really think [USA, NATO, EU, ... ], doesn't make use of [massive] cyberwarfare? And that cases like Google's or Iran's doesn't make profit to Big Members of NATO?
But your response has a basic logical misunderstanding. Both the US and China engage in cyber warfare, but making sure that Twitter is stable during a period of heavy use by protesters is clearly NOT "warfare", it is ensuring the free flow of information.
More and more I am seeing the logic of those that say Chinese censorship is a violation of their WTO Free Trade obligations, as it allows them to sell their information services internationally without also allowing foreign firms to sell their information in China. This is restraint of trade, a protectionist attitude that will harm their development in the long run.
definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Look, I'm Albanian, I'm not attacking anyone, nor I'm interested in doing it.
EDIT: For those of you thinking we live in a free world. Try writing down anything that undermines your country leaders, or what they won't you to say: in fact we don't know what to say, because if we did we couldn't (we will be the second one to know about it). We will be taken down as a National Security threat.
See the Joseph Goebbels quote by chrisb down.
An old saw is that people from dictatorships believe in conspiracy theories -- after all, they live in one. (Just look at the Middle East and old Eastern Europe.)
But THIS is over the limit for, well, strange... :-)
>>Try writing down anything that undermines your country leaders, or what they won't you to say: in fact we don't know what to say, because if we did we couldn't
So there are thought crimes/memes which we can't think about even in this age of the anonymous Internet? When people have been writing (and even implemented) revolutionary dogma for centuries?!
The main problems with conspiracies is that they have to be secret. Nothing secret is ever efficient and works well.
But certainly, some groups are illegal -- and should be. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and similar groups which murder civilians. The word "terrorism" do have a serious definition.
These are statements that I think you would agree "undermine the [US'] leaders." But we have the right to say them, and it is something we are very proud of. Almost all countries claim to offer this right to their citizens, but the US actually does grant it and protect it.
True in the 1940s and still true today.
Why couldn't Wired quote the original article instead of getting it second hand from Guardian?
"... US firm Raytheon used information picked up from NSA snooping to secure a $1.4bn contract to supply a radar system to Brazil instead of France's Thomson-CSF.
"[...]
"But former CIA director James Woolsey, in an article in March for the Wall Street Journal, acknowledged that the US did conduct economic espionage against its European allies, though he did not specify if Echelon was involved."