James Fallows weighs in at The Atlantic:
In a strange and striking way there is an inversion of recent Chinese and U.S. roles. In the switch from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, the U.S. went from a president much of the world saw as deliberately antagonizing them to a president whose Nobel Prize reflected (perhaps desperate) gratitude at his efforts at conciliation. China, by contrast, seems to be entering its Bush-Cheney era. For Chinese readers, let me emphasize again my argument that China is not a “threat” and that its development is good news for mankind. But its government is on a path at the moment that courts resistance around the world. To me, that is what Google’s decision signifies.
Henry Blodget at Advertising Age says “Google has played the overall China situation maturely and brilliantly:”
(B)y playing ball with China until it had some real leverage, Google has a much better chance of actually forcing the government to change.
And that’s the real goal here–change. If Google forces any change at all in China, it will have done more for China’s 1 billion-plus citizens than it would have if it had boycotted the country from the beginning.
Blodget suggests the outcome will be a new compromise of some kind. China’s ruling party should remember the way Europeans compromised themselves onshore once upon a time, and how that worked out; but they probably won’t treat Google like the evil round-eye.
After all, there are probably lots of party members using Google by now.
