[Vision2020] Re: Nuremberg Defense? Corporate Totalitarian Complicity

[Jeff Harkins]

Ted,


>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.

Your response is somewhat disingenuous to the 
readers and to me.  I see no point is pursuing a 
dialogue when we have each expressed our opinions 
and they are in opposition to one another.

>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:

Please note your words as the end of the sentence 
above "in my opinion".  In my opinion, I responded quite "squarely".

>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.

No Ted, I did not argue that.  In the United 
States, WalMart has been prosecuted for violation 
of US labor law.  It is not possible to prosecute 
WalMart in China for violation of US labor laws.

>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.

So you are comparing WalMart to Nazi War Criminals?

>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.

As I understand it, that is precisely why Hussein 
is being tried in Iraq by an Iraqi court.  And 
yes, the invasion of Iraq was the result of the 
processes pursued in the United Nations.  If you 
bring the WM question to the UN and prevail in 
getting the security council to accede to your 
point, then you would have not only the legal 
authority to deal with WM in China, but 
presumably the moral authority as well.  You do 
feel strongly about this issue and I would 
encourage you to pursue this agenda.  I have not 
familiarized myself with the role of the 
International Court System in matters such as 
this.  It might be fruitful for you to pursue your concerns there.

>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.

Wrong again Ted.  You seem more interested in 
subverting my comments than having a 
dialogue.  As I have stated on previous posts, I 
see three possible courses of action to deal with 
the human rights issues in China - economic and 
trade relations, cold war and/or hot war.  My 
preference for a course of action is to pursue 
economic and trade relations - for the many reasons I noted in earlier posts.

>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.

Surely you are just trying to taunt me, 
yes?  Ted, we are a nation of laws (a descriptive 
statement).  Other nations have laws as well (a 
descriptive statement).  The US has no moral 
authority in China (a descriptive statement) nor 
does it have legal authority.  Prostitution is 
illegal in the US because a large number of 
citizens (probably a majority) have elected 
officials to impose sanctions on the sale of 
sex.  (a descriptive statement and you do not 
know my feelings about this issue - I have not 
stated them - because how I FEEL about this issue 
is not at the core of the dialogue.)  The US has 
labor laws (fact). Labor laws are a moral issue 
(a fact).  If you violate labor law in the US, 
you will likely be prosecuted and sanctioned.  If 
a US company, operating in China, is in 
compliance with Chinese labor law, but  violates 
US labor law, there is no standing for a US 
plaintiff to address the issue in China - except 
perhaps persuasion.  Perhaps there is an 
opportunity to take the matter to international 
court ................legislating morality - that's a real challenge huh!

In response to what appears to be your subtext - 
am I consistently applying economic and moral 
principles?  Probably not to your satisfaction, 
but different environments may require a 
different mix of economic policy and moral persuasion.

>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.

As noted above, it depends on 
jurisdiction.  Sovereign nation states are just 
that - sovereign.  Ya gotta be careful when you 
go sticking your nose in another man's (or woman's) tent.

>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.

I think you need to stop sticking your nose in my 
tent. - That was of course, a bit facetious - but to amplify a point.

Labor unions and other WM critics can spend their 
energy attacking WM.  WM is more than capable of 
defending itself.  I am not one to defend or 
attack WalMart and that is not what interests 
me.  WM is a solid economic engine that 
efficiently and effectively moves goods from 
source to shelves to serve customers' needs.  WM 
and other international corporations are, in my 
opinion, well positioned to bring about positive 
changes in the labor markets, capital markets and 
other resource markets.  Fact is, those changes 
will come about whether WM wants them to or not - 
as long as markets are allowed to move to 
competitive status - the more companies get 
access to those "cheap" labor markets, the more 
the price for that labor will rise.

>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.

There you go again - raising that issue that I 
have not yet prepared myself to comment on.

>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.

That sounds like your opinion again.  You are 
entitled to your opinions. But I have been quite 
clear - I will comment when I have completed my research on the topic.



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

Why would you assume that I have chosen to 
disregard the cites that you provided?  Would you 
deny me the fun of the research?  What is it you 
really want?  What would you have me do?  Do you 
just want me to accede to your position?

OK - I give up.

Without a complete understanding of the issue and 
under pressure from Mr. Moffett to acknowledge 
his position, I acknowledge that he has 
identified several references and citations that 
acknowledge his position.  Based on what I know 
of the subject at this point, I admit that he has 
several references that support his claim and 
based on those citations I would attest that he 
has a position that is supported by those citations.

OK?

Have a nice spring break - I will be back in a couple of days.

>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 
><http://google.cn/>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>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."
>
>-----------
>
>
>
>On 3/9/06, Jeff Harkins <<mailto:jeffh at moscow.com>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/>http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060311/945f6802/attachment-0001.htm