Slashdot Mirror
Are Web Firms Giving in to China?
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Google and other Internet companies are sending executives to Capitol Hill for a hearing next week seeking to answer the question: Are U.S. companies giving in to China's censorship demands too easily? Chris Smith, New Jersey Republican and chairman of the House human-rights subcommittee that is holding the hearing, tells the Wall Street Journal, 'I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy? That's the wrong question. It would be great if they would promote democracy. But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.' The WSJ notes an irony: Google is fighting for 'Internet freedom' in the U.S., by resisting the Justice Department's request for information on user searches."
Western companies like Google, Microsoft, and the like could present a unified front in dealing with Beijing. They could agree to Western Principles (WP), an expanded version of the SP. Specifically, these companies agree to not assist the Chinese government, in any way, to abridge human rights. If Beijing retaliates by kicking Google out of China, then Beijing will expel all the other signatories to the WP. In this way, no Western company will gain an economic advantage over any other Western company.
How should we handle Taiwanese companies? Long before Yahoo's indifference to human rights in China, Taiwanese companies have routinely ignored human rights in China. In fact, when Western governments and companies curtailed their investments in order to punish Beijing for the incident at Tienanmen Square in 1989, the Taiwanese actually accelerated investments into China, thwarting Western economic sanctions against Beijing.
If Western companies abided by WP but Taiwanese companies ignored WP and human rights, then the Taiwanese companies would enjoy an economic advantage (in China) over Western companies. How can we deal with this situation? We boycott all products manufactured by or sold by Taiwanese companies. The boycott will level the playing field.
The real point is that instead of making hay over the executive's increasingly intrusive surveillance of ordinary Americans, the right wing is trying to change the subject to Google's relatively neutral move to enter China on the Communists' terms. Google is in the news as an advocate of privacy (for not turning over a full week of searches) and the right is trying to tarnish their image.
As evidence, note the Mighty Wurlitzer's campaign for divestment led by right-wing PJ Media and friends. Like Roger Simon's "I like to think that if I had any Google stock I'd be divesting it now". Or here. Or Michelle "The case for interning American Muslims" Malkin.
Don't buy the head fake. Google waited a long time to enter the Chinese market. They didn't just do this for the money. Instead, get back to the NSA illegal wiretap scandal, the Hurricane Katrina scandal, the no-room-at-the-inn hotel evictions of Katrina victims, the Jack Abramoff scandal, the Valerie Plame scandal, the prewar Iraq intelligence scandal (still no Phase II report! senior intelligence official reports that the administration commissioned no strategic-level assessments in the run-up to war), the troop-fatality-body-armor scandal, the Iraq reconstruction money scandal... and many other scandals.
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
everybody assumes that democracy is great. well, it ain't. anybody who thinks that democracy is great is deluding themselves, or lives in a country which operates under a corrupted version of democracy (where money talks, buys laws and generally runs things).
... well... c'est la vie. but i think you'll find that a country like china is a bit different from a tiny country in africa or south america. china pretty much runs itself; their culture is radically different from ours. who are we to dictate to them that our corrupt and weak system of government is better than theirs that has been in place for thousands of xxxxing years?
democracy as advocated by anyone who thinks "democracy should run the world esp. where there are dictatorships YEAH" actually results in a paralysed country that remains fragmented and weak. people in general are TOO STUPID and TOO SELFISH to "do the right thing".
france. they can't get rid of the crippling cost of pensions which is going to kill off the economy in ten years, because "everybody wants some", and any politician that even THINKS of mentioning "social cuts" gets kicked out.
iraq. the voting is polarising along religious lines, into three main groups. the entire country is fracturing into chaos, ripe for being plucked and whipped up by religious fanatics ["ahh things were better in the old days even dare i say it better with saddam around: let's go kill some americans, it must be their fault: if you die you will go to heaven, my poor downtrodden son"].
now.
let's see...
you want china, the world's most populous country (and a nuclear power) to... become a friggin _democracy_???? what is WRONG with you???
they have a perfectly good working bureaucracy that has helped stunt irresponsible decision-making for thousands of years; they have a figure-head who makes silly decisions like banning tai-ji, which has been practiced (again) for thousands of years, so the ban cannot be enforced and his authority is weakened; they have very _sensible_ censorship laws in place which make it clear to people that "western corruption" is not "officially" tolerated.
i used to think, probably like you do, that "china is evil" because they have communism and they have dictatorship, and that their pttoeyy-attitude towards "the corruption and decadence of the west" was just bad manners and ideology.
_then_ i went to america, and i began to understand what they were on about. when chinese say "the west" they mean "america". the land where a friend of mine was asked what the weather was like where he was from (australia) and when he said "oh, it's snowing, mate" the guy looked at him like he was a fucking idiot.
dictatorship _works_ in certain places, and it is appropriate (and a very very heavy burden of responsibility). chris patten (hong kong). fidel castro (responsible for the BEST healthcare system anywhere in the world). red ken (mayor of london for 11 years with only another nine more to go. dang you don't get _prison_ sentences that long!!). more recently: paddy ashdown (croatia, i think) has been placed as the governor there i mean mr ashdown has serious SERIOUS xxxxing responsibility: police of chief, head of state, most senior judge, president of the country's bank... that kind of responsibility REALLY gets to you.
when people sign up for these things it's usually for life - or a significant portion of it - and as a general rule, they take it frickin seriously.
where it goes wrong is usually because the people who "take over" are interested in corruption and greed and aren't _actually_ interested in the populace.
what we find distasteful is that instead of being able to "vote the bastards out", it usually requires a bit more violence to get rid of them.