[Vision2020] Re: Corporate Totalitarian Complicity

[Jeff Harkins]

At 01:43 PM 3/9/2006, you wrote:
>Jeff et. al.
>
>So I assume then that you oppose the economic restrictions our 
>government has imposed on Cuba?  We should follow the "economic 
>engagement" model you suggest with Cuba?

Yes - it is time that we open trade relations with Cuba.  Besides, we 
need access to their cigars, sugar cane and baseball players.

>And that the economic sanctions against South Africa during 
>apartheid were a mistake?  We should have engaged in business as 
>usual with South Africa?

Yes - they were a mistake.  There is ample evidence that the 
sanctions we imposed hurt the people we were trying to help more than 
the separatists we were trying to harm.  But that problem seems to 
have been resolved.

>Or the sanctions against Iraq after Gulf War One?  Those were a mistake also?

Maybe - this one really depends on whether you believe the Hussein 
regime had WMD.  With hindsight on this one - maybe we should have 
not stopped Gulf War 1 when we did.

>And the threat of sanctions against Iran now to persuade them to 
>alter their plans for nuclear developments?  This also is a mistaken policy?

I don't believe economic sanctions will be effective in deterring 
Iran's development of WMD.  I am not all that opposed to trying, but 
I am not optimistic about the outcome. A religious ideology is 
difficult to break with economics.

>You imply the answer to my objections to US based corporations 
>engaging in violations of environmental, labor and human rights law 
>when doing business in other nations, violations that help these 
>corporations out compete their competitors, is the extreme response 
>of restricting international business with these nations.  I 
>provided a link to information regarding the US Congress debating 
>placing conditions upon US based companies, like Yahoo and Google, 
>to not cooperate with China's Communist Party in violating the free 
>speech and political rights of Chinese citizens.  Odd that you made 
>no reference to the fact that US corporations are complicit in 
>cooperating with China's totalitarian dictatorship in sending 
>political dissidents to jail for exercising free speech rights.

I implied no such thing.  In fact, you note that I made no comment 
whatsoever.  I am researching this question and if I am persuaded to 
a position, I will be forthcoming with my thoughts.

>  I am suggesting what was suggested by the US Congress.  I did not 
> suggest blocking all trade with China.  Let our corporations be a 
> firm guide in promoting democratic values in other nations, not a 
> sleazy co-conspirator cooperating with a dictatorship to violate 
> the human rights of its citizens.

At this point, I have no hard evidence to substantiate your 
allegation.  I am aware of many positive actions by US companies, 
including Internet companies.  But I will seek to learn more about 
your "conspiracy" allegations and, if persuaded by the evidence I 
obtain, will post you on my findings.

>As to favoring a "cold" or "hot" war with China, I think to some 
>extent we have a "cold war" now with China.  Witness China's recent 
>release of a report on US human rights violations, listing our 
>treatment of prisoners in the war on terror, and our treatment of 
>people in the Hurricane Katrina disaster, as human rights 
>violations.  China's response is partly aimed at the US criticisms 
>for China's human rights violations.  This tit for tat exchange of 
>accusations is an expression of an ideological cold war now under 
>way between China and the US.  If holding US based corporations to a 
>firm stand blocking egregious violations of human rights, 
>environmental standards and labor laws implies a "cold war" with 
>China, then so be it.

Well, labels are easy to apply - I think of a "cold war" that focuses 
on weapons build up, DefCon 5, strong anti -your opponent comments 
and so forth.  The dialogue between the two nations looks more to me 
like "establishing the conditions of trade and economic markets and 
not cold war.  Let's just agree to disagree on this one.  It is too 
rooted in definitions to lead to a meaningful dialogue.

>The notion that capitalism always implies democracy is a mistaken 
>idea.  China no doubt is and will be a fierce competitor in the 
>capitalist world.  But US corporations engaging in human rights 
>violations in China could just as well be a green light for the 
>Chinese Communist Party to continue their repressions of their 
>citizens, rather than an influence to democratize that nation.  Why 
>should the Chinese Communist Party give up their firm hold on power 
>when the world's leading democracy assists them in jailing political 
>dissidents who dare speak out against the Chinese Communist 
>Party?  Or when Google agrees to censor their search engine to block 
>references to the truth about Tienanmen Square?  If I was China's 
>leader, I would quietly smile to myself thinking how successful 
>China has been in compromising the democratic idealism of the USA in 
>gaining their complicity in maintaining the Socialist Communists 
>hold on power!  All the Chinese Communist Party must do to continue 
>its dictatorial hold on power is assure the American capitalists 
>that they can make a killing off the cheap labor and other 
>competitive advantages China offers.  Then the USA will not take a 
>firm stand against China's human rights abuses beyond meaningless 
>propaganda statements.

Again, let's just agree that we see the world differently on this 
point.  We have been attempting to build economic bridges with the 
Chinese for decades.  Our efforts have only begun to bear fruit - but 
our trade relations really enjoy only about a 20 year 
history.  During the past decade, many thousands of Chinese have been 
schooled in the US.  It will take time for all that investment to 
bear a full return. Allow a taste of capitalism (free enterprise, 
risk and return, freedom of choice) and the appetite for other 
freedoms will grow.

Thanks for your response.  As I get my head around the "US Internet 
Corporations conspiracy with China's Communist Party" I will weigh in.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060309/f102e0ef/attachment-0001.htm