SHANGHAI - In early September, Chinese regulators renewed a vital business license for Google called an Internet Content Provider license (ICP). This move makes it possible for the search engine giant to continue its business services in China and keep its market share on the mainland.

It is interesting to note that Luan Yue, Google China's market development director of the technical marketing department, told Tech Web that the media misrepresented the company by saying "Google will return" since it had never left.

Now may be the time to rethink the disagreement between Google and Beijing, which has mainly centered on the tango between principles and profits since early 2010.

Many may remember the January 2010 blog post by Google's Chief Legal Officer David Drummond after it decided to stop censoring search results: "We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China".

The blog post triggered a large discussion on the possibility that the Internet giant would withdraw from the Chinese mainland, one of the biggest and maybe the most important markets of Internet services in the world.

Google came to the mainland in 2006 and Beijing has done nothing but continue its attitude and policy in regulating the Internet since then. And it was in 2007 that Google received a five-year ICP license, which needs to be renewed annually. In this aspect, China's recent renewing of Google's ICP license isn't surprising.

Does the sovereignty have the right to regulate cyberspace inside its borders for those companies which provide Internet services and content? Is it possible for those transnational companies to make a profit in certain countries without respect to the local regulations? Would it be possible to assume that a company could sacrifice its economic profits for other principles, such as Internet freedom, which implies an unlimited flow of information? Answers to these questions are far more important than the detailed facts of whether Google got its license renewed and whether it will stay or leave a market.

Though the development and spread of technology has already created a transnational cyberspace, it's legal for each government to regulate the Internet, which means managing those companies providing the necessary infrastructure and services to support the normal functions of the Internet. Although famous for the slogan "Don't be evil", Google is a company first. That means it has to find a way to cooperate with any government if it wants to make a profit, which is at least as important as its principles. Google's source of profit coincides with the principle of the free flow of information, so it's quite natural for Google to cover its pursuit for profits with the claim of promoting its principles.

China is not the only country that has legal disputes with Google. Germany, South Korea, France, Thailand, India, Saudi Arab and Australia are a few that don't see eye to eye with Google when the promotion of the free flow of information conflicts with important values such as privacy, the safety of children and the history or cultural background of certain countries.

The conflict between Google and China also implies the complicated interaction between Washington and Beijing.

Google is one of the biggest and most influential political donors to US President Barack Obama. On the other hand, the US government has had strong intentions of taking advantage of IT to promote its own interests since the mid-1990s.

On July 17, 1995, Charles Swett, assistant for strategic assessment for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (Policy Planning), prepared a classified report named Strategic Assessment: The Internet. The paper, which has been declassified, reviews the actual and potential effect of the Internet on domestic and foreign politics and international conflict from the US' point of view. It also points out that the "Internet will be used as a tool of statecraft by national governments", and it "will play an increasingly significant role in international conflict".

The policies of the Obama administration consider companies, such as Google, a special force for Washington. Because of the increasing concerns over national security issues, the Internet will likely be regulated, as it is in China.

Maybe it's time to rethink the tango between principles and profits. Why not try to keep the neutrality of the Internet, which could ensure that people everywhere could enjoy the benefits of cyberspace? By working together, countries can meet all kinds of new challenges raised by the Internet, such as the abuse of IT by terrorists, transnational criminal organizations, hackers, mobs and so on. That's a real tough challenge and we should try to do that as soon as possible.

The author is a lecturer at the Department of International Politics at Fudan University.

China Daily