US should not politicize Internet

People pose in front of a display showing the word 'cyber' in binary code, in this picture illustration taken in Zenica December 27, 2014. [Photo/Agencies]

Security and other issues related to cyberspace have increasingly affected international relations, leading to a war of words among some major world powers. Openness and freedom are the two basic features of the Internet, through which information freely flows from one person to another and from one country to another, and that is why "freedom" is said to be the founding stone of cyberspace.

But this freedom cannot be limitless and should not challenge the normal order of cyberspace. As Lu Wei, minister of the Cyberspace Administration of China, once said, freedom is the purpose while order serves to protect it. Freedom and regulation are not mutually contradictory. Instead, they are two sides of the same coin.

Besides, since cyberspace, despite being called the virtual world, is intimately connected with the real world, chaos in the former can lead to disastrous consequences in the latter. The riots that rocked London, Birmingham and several other cities in the United Kingdom in 2011 after the death of a black UK citizen and flared up thanks to social networks are a good example of how lack of order in the virtual world can cause mayhem in the real world.

To prevent such tragedies from happening and since all freedoms come with responsibilities and limits, most countries have enacted laws to regulate cyberspace. But some countries, to fulfill their narrow interests, try to politicize the laws that other countries have implemented as a safeguard against the bedlam the misuse of cyberspace could unleash on society.

Take the US for instance. For the past several years, based on its claim that freedom of the Internet is a universal right, it has been trying to promote cyberspace as a public domain together with the Antarctica, the oceans and space, and has thus been avoiding the issue of national sovereignty.

The US' efforts reek of hegemonic philosophy. In fact, the US has been spreading its ideology in other countries through many websites and social networks, so as to trigger political disputes in societies that adhere to political philosophies other than that propounded by Washington. We should not forget that countries like Libya have become victims of the US' promotion of Western-style democracy.

Another reason for the US to talk about freedom of the Internet is to serve its trade and protectionist policies and cause trade frictions with other countries. With its modern technologies and global influence, Washington has been trying to help US-based enterprises enter other countries' markets on the pretext of defending free trade. When Google was pulled up by the Chinese government for violating the country's laws, the US government ironically accused China of not being a "free" country.

As a result, politicization of Internet freedom has become an obstacle to international cooperation. With the dispute over Internet freedom already a major international issue, countries with different understandings of cyberspace accuse each other of violating rules. Some of these differences have even led to trade frictions and protectionist measures.

Worse, other political issues are involved in the disputes over Internet freedom, which can easily turn into wider conflicts and make it more difficult for the related countries to resolve the existing issues.

Therefore, to boost global cooperation countries across the world should avoid pointing the finger against each other to prove whose Internet rules are better.

The author is a senior researcher in cybersecurity at China Center for Information Industry Development, affiliated to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

By Liu Quan (China Daily)

Related:

Internet Governance: Is it finally time to drop the training wheels?

Related posts:

Rightways: Upset over US cyber spying!

Jun 17, 2013

There are increasingly strong reactions to revelations that United States agencies are spying on Internet use by Americans and foreigners as well as planning cyber actions on foreign targets. Weekend News Round-up: US ...

http://right-waystan.blogspot.com/

Rightways: Learning From The Masters of Management

Dec 22, 2011

The first is the rise of the internet. A decade ago the internet was still a fancy reference tool and Google was still a start up. Today the internet is reorganising the world. The internet is not only spawning an entire ecosystem of ...

http://right-waystan.blogspot.com/

Rightways: You are being snooped on, Malaysia views US ...

Nov 04, 2013

Spying by foreign intelligence agencies is also prevalent in Malaysia and other regional countries via the Internet or spying equipment located in embassies. SO last week it was the turn of Asians to learn that their region was ...

http://right-waystan.blogspot.com/

Rightways Technologies: China's Internet giants, Tencent to ...

14 Aug 2014

Tencent Holdings Ltd. (700) faces the prospect of losing its position as Asia's most-valuable Internet company this year after Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. (BABA) goes public. The Shenzhen-based company isn't going to ...

http://rightwaysrichard.blogspot.com/

Foreign tech firms pose threat on Internet - Rightways ...

04 Jun 2014

Foreign tech firms pose threat on Internet; World's largest Internet hacker. Companies asked by Washington to use online services to spy on customers. Foreign technology services providers such as Google and Apple can ...

http://rightwaysrichard.blogspot.com/

Rightways Technologies: Brazil attacks US over spying issue

30 Sep 2013

INTERNET spying by the US government became a major issue at the United Nations General Assembly last week when political leaders heard a blistering attack by the Brazilian president who was visibly angry about how ...

http://rightwaysrichard.blogspot.com/

US is bringing storms to Apec and ploy in South China Sea

Stirring up a storm

US is bringing storms to South China Sea

The 2015 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting starts in Manila, the Philippines on Wednesday. The suspense is to what extent the US will foist the South China Sea disputes into this economic and trade meeting. Manila has made clear that territorial disputes will not be included on the agenda, but Washington is not resigned to letting it go, but apparently will bring forth the issue on the sidelines of the meeting.

Compared with the horrible terror clouding Europe, the bone of contention in the APEC meeting - the South China Sea disputes - is unworthy of equal attention. France has shut its borders, and several European countries and half of US states are considering whether to shun Syrian refugees. Chaos and turbulence caused by relentless wars continue in the Middle East, and with the path of fleeing blocked, hatred and resentment among the refugees will thrive.

Many believe the US should assume the primary responsibility for the turmoil in Europe. The US has managed to keep terrorism away from of its own turf after rounds of strong interventions in the Middle East with the aid of its European allies after the 9/11 attacks. However, unable to extend their reach to American soil, terrorists have sabotaged Europe time and again, from Madrid to London and recently, Paris.

Now, Washington sets its sights on the South China Sea. It is trying to provoke regional tensions like it did in the Middle East by waving a larger banner reading "pivot to Asia."

The West has been eager to fan the flames everywhere, but excused themselves by claiming they are not cause of the tension.

The question is whether the South China Sea is heading toward turmoil. If it is, the region will probably be doomed. The raging waves in the South China Sea, argued some analysts, are also likely to jeopardize Washington's interests, but compared with the much greater threat and dangers a turbulent South China Sea poses to China, Washington might be willing to take the risk.

The South China Sea is not a powder keg, because countries around the sea have established a community of shared destiny in terms of development. This could be a cushion against aggression in territorial rows. No claimant is willing to head for a showdown in the South China Sea. Tension surrounding China's reclamation of islands in the sea is abating, stretching the elasticity of the other claimants in dealing with the territorial disputes.

Washington is in the middle of instigating more tensions and accepting China's expanding leverage in rule-making, albeit it has launched vocal protests and flexed its muscles by sending warships in the sea.

China is gaining the upper hand in directing the South China Sea issues, which is a guarantee that the region won't be out of control due to Washington's instigation.

For the public good of the entire region, China should exert restraint over Washington's mischief. - Global Times

US ploy in South China Sea bound to fail



President Xi Jinping’s visit to the Philippines for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting from Nov 17 to 19 has quelled speculations that the maritime disputes with the host nation could make him decide otherwise.

Last week Philippines President Benigno Aquino III assured visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi that the APEC meeting would focus on Asia-Pacific regional economic cooperation without raising the disputes in the South China Sea, as most members including China had agreed. But the US State Department has hinted that the South China Sea issue could be raised during the meeting despite Manila’s efforts to prevent the agenda from deviating from free trade and sustainable growth in and common prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region.

As the world’s second-largest sea-lane that connects the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean, the South China Sea is of great strategic importance to all countries in the region, as well as the US and European countries.

Nearly 80 percent of global trade depends upon maritime transportation, and about one-third of it is carried out through the South China Sea, which sees the passage of at least 40,000 ships a year. The number of oil tankers that sail through the Strait of Malacca, a critical passage through regional waters, is almost three times that of the Suez Canal and five times of the Panama Canal. Two-thirds of the global trade in liquefied natural gas is also conducted through the waterway.

China has more stakes that any other country in safeguarding peace and stability in the South China Sea, because it is a major channel of its global economic network. So ensuring smooth transportation (of energy sources) and navigation through the South China Sea is not only conducive to the shared interests of all Asia-Pacific economies - such as China, the US, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations - but also economies elsewhere.

China passed the Law on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1992, and the Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf seven years later. It ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1996 and publicized the territorial baseline of its mainland and Xisha Islands.

True, it is yet to disclose the territorial baseline of its Nansha Islands, but that does not nullify its legal rights in the surrounding waters, including territorial sea, exclusive economic zones and continental shelf. This makes the entry of US guided-missile destroyer USS Lassen into the waters near China’s islands in the South China Sea last month a violation of international law.

The US’ attempt to justify its action on the pretext of “freedom of navigation” is a rather clumsy argument that ignores some specific clauses in international law, for instance, innocent passage in territorial seas, transit passage in straits used for international navigation, and sea-lane passage through archipelagoes.

Also, the freedom of navigation clause in international law is neither unconditional nor beyond international regulations. Freedom of navigation can neither be above an affected coastal state’s laws and rights in the exclusive economic zones nor can it override other countries’ interests in the high seas.

Washington’s recent provocative moves have infringed upon Beijing’s maritime sovereignty and security in the South China Sea, the United Nations Charter as well as international law. They were also intended to show the US’ military muscles on the pretext of practicing freedom of navigation.

But China is not one to give in when it comes to its territorial, maritime and security interests, and the US is unlikely to succeed in its designs by instigating ASEAN countries to challenge China’s maritime rights in the South China Sea.

The author is deputy director of the China Institute for Marine Affairs attached to the State Oceanic Administration.

By Jia Yu (China Daily)

Related posts:


US making trouble & provocation out of nothing; Ch...

South China Sea tension: US no hope to win, should..

• Xiangshan defense forum: PLA prowess persists with...
• US warned against 'provocations': patrol plan risk...

Islamic State new killing fields, nothing less than total domination

http://bcove.me/pqcpn5yj

THE news on Saturday felt like double hammer blows. The Islamic State’s slaughter of 129 people in Paris and the Malaysian IS militants in southern Philippines’ plan to form an “official” IS faction in South-East Asia were just plain shocking and sickening.

Back in March I wrote about my fear of the IS and decried how people who profess to want to protect Islam in Malaysia were targeting the wrong people, namely non-Muslims, and particularly the Christians.

It is with deep distress I return to this growing horror which cannot be ignored.

While I do believe our Govern­ment is completely committed to fighting IS’ influence and I am deeply relieved that our police has top-notch intelligence that – as Special Branch Counter Terrorism Division head Senior Asst Comm Datuk Ayob Khan said – ensures “that we are on top of any development concerning militant groups”, this extreme form of militant Islam continues to take root in our midst.

It was reported in October that more than 100 suspected terrorists and militants have been detained under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) 2012. Among them were Malaysian combatants who had returned from Syria and Iraq, as well as army commandos and civil servants. Over the last few days, more have been detained.

The Star’s report on Saturday that a former Universiti Malaya lecturer, Dr Mahmud Ahmad, who trains suicide bombers, is behind the formation of an IS group that will plan attacks in Malaysia and the region is even more chilling.

More scary was Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein’s revelation on Monday that the IS is targeting Malaysian leaders who are regarded as tagut. Tagut the article explains are “those who have crossed religious boundaries” which is extremely vague.

But it would appear to mean, going by online definitions, people who worship other gods as well as Muslims who “exceed their limits” like legislators who make laws in Parliament. They are deemed to be equating themselves with Allah and challenging Allah’s divine laws.

If these are all possible meanings of tagut, then all our elected representatives and government leaders, Muslim and non-Muslim, are fair game to IS.

In Graeme Wood’s article entitled “What Isis really wants” in the March issue of The Atlantic, he states that IS’ aim is to restore the Caliphate after it ended in Turkey almost a century ago. (Isis or the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham is the earlier manifestation of IS).

After some 14 months of fighting, the proponents achieved their goal on June 30, 2014, when their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, proclaimed himself as the new caliph and successor to Prophet Muhammad in a mosque in Mosul, Iraq.

his 21st-century construct, however, is global and borderless and as such, al-Baghdadi says he is the leader of Muslims everywhere who must pledge allegiance to him. Failure to do so means being branded as an apostate, which is punishable by death.

Wood quotes Bernard Haykel, described as the leading secular expert on IS ideology, as saying these jihadists are “authentic throwbacks to early Islam and faithfully reproducing its norms of war.”

Haykel further states, “Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish (jihadists) are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition” and that IS fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”

The Islamic State, according to Wood, also claims that common Syiah practices, such as worship at the graves of imams and public self-flagellation, have no basis in the Quran or the Prophet’s examples.

“That means roughly 200 million Syiah (Muslims) are marked for death. So too are the heads of state of every Muslim country, who have ele­­­­­vated man-made laws above Syariah by running for office or enforcing laws not made by God,” he writes.

He adds this is because the Islamic State is committed to purifying the world of apostates, and presumably tagut, even if it means mass killings. So back to Hishammuddin’s statement that our leaders are IS’ targets. He also declared that the threat will not stop them from fighting the terrorists. Fighting the IS should be every citizen’s responsibility, at least it should be for every citizen who still believes in a multiracial, democratic Malaysia.

At such a dangerous time, I reiterate my appeal to Muslims and non-Muslims to stand together. I cannot believe peace-loving Malaysian Sunnis would agree to IS’ desire to wipe out millions of Syiah Muslims and non-Muslims.

Unfortunately, we still have leaders wanting to play the religious card which sows confusion and suspicion between Muslims and non-Muslims. We have seen the antics of some this year and the latest one is from the Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister who is thinking of having mandatory halal and non-halal trolleys in supermarkets.

Thankfully, ever since the proposal came to light, many groups, including Malaysian Muslim Solidarity (Isma), have criticised it.

As Isma president Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman opined: It is not practical and “Islam is not about making things difficult”.

Many have also asked: With such thinking, what will follow next? Food courts to have halal and non-halal cutlery? Separate banknotes and coins?

And what about enforcement? Who gets fined if a shopper uses a halal trolley for non-halal items? Said shopper or supermarket owner?

If the minister really wants to help all shoppers, he should insist supermarkets maintain their trolleys well and give them a wash regularly. I have struggled with trolleys with bad wheels, sticky handles and grubby baskets.

Seriously, our leaders have a lot more important things to worry about, like ferreting out more IS recruiters in our schools, armed forces and government, than segregating shopping carts. This is a fight against a deadly, implacable and seductive enemy and we don’t need any distractions like these in the name of religious correctness.

It certainly won’t make us any safer or more Muslim in the eyes of the IS which is intent on annihilating the present world order to replace it with their own.

BY JUNE H.L. WONG

Aunty recalls this memorable line from Aamir Khan’s movie, PK. It is spoken by the central character, an alien stranded on Earth as he clutches the shoe of his friend who was killed in a train bomb blast: ‘Stop protecting your own god, otherwise only shoes will be left on this planet and not people.’ Feedback to aunty@thestar.com.my

Related posts:

Malaysian Islamic State militants: Dr Mahmud is forming South-East Asian terror bloc; Paris attacks !

Regional faction to unite different terror cells from Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines KUALA LUMPUR: Wanted Malay­sian IS milittans

Can France's daring move eliminate Islamic State? Terrorism is modern society's cancer !

France vs ISIS 2015 By Li Min After the brutal terror attacks in Paris, France's Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve called for