[Vision2020] Nuremberg Defense? Corporate Totalitarian Complicity

[Ted Moffett]

Jeff et. al.

When respondents in a discussion do not face the questions raised or facts
presented, it is frustrating.  I do not accept your suggestion to drop
certain topics for now.  Perhaps you will delete and ignore this response,
but others may find the arguments and facts presented below of value.

You did not squarely answer this question from my previous post in this
thread when I compared the case of a moral argument against prostitution
resulting in strong government regulation, to a similar argument applied to
Wal-Mart, in my opinion:

Jeff seems to argue there are no valid "moral" objections that can be raised
to Wal-Marts conduct.  Correct me if I am wrong, Jeff.
---------
You did make a stab at answering the question by asserting that you, I and
the USA has no legal standing in China, and that a boycott of Chinese made
goods is not the solution.  This argument is a form of the Nuremberg defense
used by Nazi war criminals:  they were following the current laws of
Germany, and other nations had no right to impose their laws.  According to
this argument, Saddam Hussein cannot be judged by US legal standards, nor
did the US have any legal standing to invade and depose him, unless you
bring in the United Nations, or some other international body which asserts
universal moral standards, providing us a "moral" standard outside national
boundaries, which then also allows us to judge US Corporations "moral"
conduct in China.

If US Corporations might be following, as you suggested, the dictum "when in
Rome, you must do as the Romans do," this appears to be an admission that US
corporations are violating China's citizens human rights, given that China
certainly violates the human rights of its citizens.  Perhaps you think it
is acceptable for US based corporations to be complicit in violating human
rights in China, based on whatever argument you are using, perhaps an
argument referencing a "greater good in the long run" to be gained by
winking at US corporate complicity with human rights violations.

Let me ask again, phrased differently:  if you think the government should
be in the business of policing "moral" issues like prostitution between two
consenting adults who agree to an economic exchange for services rendered,
with both parties happy with the outcome, why do you negate the validity of
"moral" arguments against Wal-Mart, assuming you do?  What I am implying is
that you may not be consistently applying economic and moral principles,
allowing strong government regulation of business in one case based on
certain moral principles, yet denying the validity of government regulation
of business in a different case, based on other moral principles that some
people assert.

You in fact do make a "moral" argument for Wal-Mart's positive effect, both
domestic and internationally.  But you seem to deny that a different kind of
moral argument can be made to regulate Wal-Mart more strenuously to enforce
more stringent labor, environmental and human rights law.

I think you need to show that the moral principles some apply to demand more
regulation of Wal-Mart's conduct are either flawed or invalid principles,
that Wal-Mart simply does not engage in the egregious conduct some allege,
or that the good Wal-Mart is doing is inextricably linked to the
egregious conduct in a manner that justifies taking no further action based
on government regulation against the undesirable conduct.

You did imply this later alternative when you suggested that the best
approach is to "provide opportunities for the Chinese culture to see
alternatives."  But then applying this argument to the censorship of
information in China by US based Internet companies should have you up in
arms!  I guess not.

On the issue of US based Internet corporations conduct in China that has
raised serious human rights concerns, I think you are dodging the issue when
you responded:

I don't yet know enough about the issue your raised regarding the role of
the Internet and US companies in denying freedom of speech for Chinese
citizens to know how accurate those accusations are.
--------
Unless the US Congress is debating restrictions on the international conduct
of certain US based Internet corporations based on fantasy (a possibility,
given other fantasies that have dominated the US Congress, like Iraq WMDs in
the months before invading) the conduct I referenced regarding US
Corporations assisting the Chinese Communist Party in China with censorship,
and information resulting in the jailing of political dissidents, is rather
well documented at this time. In fact, the corporations involved are caught
red handed in some of the instances of egregious conduct involved in these
issues. It seems you have chosen to disregard the evidence I presented
earlier on this topic, so I will now present more information in the
following links, with some excerpts.  There are suggestions for US
government regulation of US Internet corporations, to stop this egregious
conduct, by several US Congresspeople, presented below:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-02-12-china-net_x.htm

Smith's bill — still being written — has already drawn interest from another
lawmaker, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., with long-held concerns about U.S.
business cozying up to the Chinese government. "This is greed in high
technology, and it's not a pretty sight," Rohrabacher says.

Smith has scheduled a Wednesday hearing on the issue, which Google,
Microsoft, Yahoo and Cisco Systems will attend. He is unmoved by their
stance that conducting business in China in limited ways will better nurture
human rights than abandoning the nation of 1.3 billion altogether.

If anything, Smith says, China's human rights record has slipped, even as
more U.S. companies pile into the country. "It's gotten worse," he says.

Google last month launched Google.cn <http://google.cn/>, a version of its
No. 1 search engine that prevents Chinese residents from seeing, for
example, photos of tanks confronting Tiananmen Square protesters in 1989.
Also last month, Microsoft acknowledged shutting down a blog run by a
Chinese journalist critical of the government.

Last fall, Yahoo acknowledged giving information to Chinese officials that
led to a 10-year prison sentence for a journalist accused of divulging state
secrets. Last week, Reporters Without Borders, a journalism group critical
of Yahoo's cooperation with Chinese officials, accused it of working with
the Chinese government in another case that led to a dissident being jailed.
Yahoo said it was unaware of the case.

Smith's bill would also establish codes of conduct for Internet companies
operating in repressive regimes. It would set export controls for technology
such as website filtering devices that can limit free speech. And it would
create a State Department office to investigate suspected persecution of
Internet users in foreign countries.

Smith, a member of Congress since 1981, is vice chairman of the Committee on
International Relations, which oversees the State Department.

----------------------

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-01-voa86.cfm?CFID=36781401&CFTOKEN=57788209


Congressman Tom Lantos accused the American companies of sacrificing human
rights for business interests.

"These massively successful high-tech companies, which couldn't bring
themselves to send their representatives to this meeting today, should be
ashamed," said Mr Lantos.  "With all their power and influence, wealth and
high visibility, they neglected to commit to the kind of positive action
that human rights activists in China take every day.  They caved in to
Beijing's demands for the sake of profits, or whatever else they choose to
call it."

-----------

Ted Moffett

P.S.  I do not boycott Wal-Mart.  I do shop there occasionally, with similar
misgivings to those I have when I fill my gas tank, knowing the questionable
moral consequences of that economic act.  The issue of moral compromises and
when they are justified, if ever, is a thorny subject many avoid, often
because a frank and thorough analysis reveals we all engage in questionable
moral compromises.  But it is obvious I find the current US Federal
government too friendly to allowing egregious moral conduct by US based
multinational corporations on the domestic or international stage, in
the name of "free markets" and profits.


On 3/9/06, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> *I am sensing just a bit of acrimony in your queries, hopefully I am
> wrong.
>
> *
>
> As far as I can tell from your response, when it comes to prostitution,
> you declare this a "moral" issue (and Wal-Mart's human rights, labor or
> environmental violations are not moral issues with equal importance to
> prostitution?), based on community standards, which the community has
> reasonably (I assume Jeff thinks illegal prostitution to be reasonable,
> given that he chose to not come out in favor of letting marketplace freedoms
> operate on this issue) decided to regulate with criminal sanctions
>
>
> *In the US, prostitution is illegal in the vast majority of states - the
> exception may be Nevada.  Sex for sale is considered a moral crime - I did
> not declare it, I simply acknowledged it.  As I understand it, prostitution
> is legal in Holland.  I don't like it, but I don't have legal standing in
> Holland - and short of becoming a citizen of Holland, there isn't much I can
> do about that.
>
> *
>
> But if some think there are moral issues with Wal-Mart's international
> conduct, or local community standards that some think Wal-Mart may violate
> in bringing a supercenter to Moscow, Jeff turns to the arguments supporting
> the benefits of the unfettered free market.  Jeff seems to argue there are
> no valid "moral" objections that can be raised to Wal-Marts conduct.
> Correct me if I am wrong, Jeff.
>
>
> *It is not illegal in the US for China to violate Chinese human rights in
> China.  I don't like it, but I have no legal standing in China - and neither
> do you - and neither does the US government.  The best I think we can do is
> to provide opportunities for the Chinese culture to see alternatives.  I do
> not know, for a fact, that US corporations are "intentionally" violating
> Chinese human rights.  They may be following the dictum of "when in Rome,
> you must do as the Romans do".  This may be the only way in which they can
> do business in China.  This may have been a policy decision  made at the
> very top of the food chain for US policy or in the G8 or elsewhere.  I do
> know that boycotting Chinese goods will only negate the progress we have
> made in Chinese relations.
>
> Furthermore, I do not stand in the way of your decision to boycott WM or
> to exclude them from your shopping experience.  Should WM be able to expand
> their operations here in Moscow ?- Of course.  I should not even mention
> this, but the fact is if you are really serious about changing WM behaviors,
> you have a much better chance of having an impact if they have a presence
> here - and the larger their presence, the more impact you can have.
>
> *
>
> Jeff wrote that we have a "reasonable strategy for working with China."  I
> don't call assisting the Chinese Communist Party with denying freedom of
> political speech, and providing information that results in the jailing of
> political prisoners a "reasonable strategy."
>
>
> *I think this is a point where we will just simply have to agree to not
> engage on this topic for awhile.  I don't yet know enough about the issue
> your raised regarding the role of the Internet and US companies in denying
> freedom of speech for Chinese citizens to know how accurate those
> accusations are.  I do correspond on a somewhat frequent basis with former
> students now living in China.  I have not been aware of any restrictions in
> our dialogue.  Of course, that is only anecdotal and therefore not of much
> value in this dialogue.  I plan to raise the issue with folks at the Batelle
> Lab in TriCities .  As noted earlier, when I have an opinion on this area, I
> will provide a comment to you.  Fair enough?
>
> *
>
> I could offer documentation regarding Wal-Mart's conduct internationally
> that raises moral issues, but this information has already been posted to
> Vision2020.
>
>
> *And I could offer reams of evidence to point out the good things that WM
> has done for individuals around the globe - even here in Moscow, but those
> are also well documented.
>
>
> *
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060311/c61d5691/attachment-0001.htm