[Vision2020] Taiwan? Re: Corporate Totalitarian Complicity

Sat Mar 25 20:38:18 PST 2006

Jeff et. al.

Myanswer to how the US should respond to US based corporations that are
engaging in conduct in other nations that violates labor, environmental and
other human rights law (please remember that this body of law contains both
US la

On 3/11/06, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> *Ted,
>
> *
>
> Jeff et. al.
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
>
> *You are welcome
> *
>
>
> However, the issue of US based Internet corporations in complicity with
> the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship in censorship, and the jailing of
> Chinese dissidents for political speech, is only one issue regarding US
> corporations conduct in China, an issue which is rather well documented at
> this time regarding whether the conduct occurred (it did), so I'm puzzled by
> your signaling you want to withdraw from this discussion to research this US
> Internet corporate complicity with Communist China.
>
>
> *I don't quite understand your insistence that I respond before I have had
> an opportunity to adequately research this matter. I have been looking into
> the issue and while I find a few threads that argue your point, I have found
> equally compelling threads that would take issue with your position.  I will
> comment when I have settled the issues in my mind - and clarified how the
> technology has been used.
>
> *
>
> I won't elaborate on all the points in your last response in this thread,
> some of which are not central to the issues we were first discussing, except
> to say US relations with China on the issue of Taiwan do rise to the level
> of a "cold war," *in my opinion*, though I agree the term "cold war" can
> be defined various ways.
>
>
> *As you so eloquently state, "...in my opinion".  It is not my opinion.  I
> am comfortable to be in disagreement on this issue.
>
> *
>
> I wonder, if China invaded Taiwan for a full military takeover, would the
> US take military action to defend Taiwan?
>
>
> *Probably.
>
> *
>
> There has been military "saber rattling" by the US and China on this tense
> situation, given the US has positioned military assets to send China a
> "message" of "hands off" Taiwan, and China has conducted military
> exercises that no one doubts were aimed at sending a message to both Taiwan
> and the US that China still considers Taiwan a legitimate part of "China,"
> not a fully independent government with full rights to national sovereignty.
> The answer to the "Taiwan" question helps to inform the answer to the
> question regarding whether China/US relations are a "cold war."
>
>
> *My read of that situation is very different from yours.  China and Taiwan
> approached the brink of war.  Intervention by the US and many other nations
> have helped to diffuse that situation - through trade negotiations and
> relations.  Military assets remain in place, but trade relations have
> improved dramatically and the situation seems to have cooled somewhat.
>
> *
>
> I am posting my response to your last post answering my concerns about
> Wal-Mart, morals and prostitution, from the thread "[Vision2020] RE:
> Unstable, Doomed, Missed Points," under the subject heading for this thread,
> which seems more appropriate to the content.   We are not discussing
> pharmacies and access to drugs relating to Wal-Mart, though this could
> factor into our discussion.
>
>
> *I made no posts at all on the pharmacies and access to drugs question.
> Changing to the Subject thread you are using is fine with me.
>
> *
>
> A few other "corrections" seem to be required, however, to your last
> response to my last post under this thread.
>
> Jeff wrote "I implied no such thing" in response to my statement below:
>
> "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."
> ---------------------
> You had written in response to my objections to the conduct of the Chinese
> Communist Party and US based multinationals in China:
>
> Should we stop selling our products to them?  Should we stop buying their
> products.?
>
> My sentence above in quotes was a response to these two questions.
>
>
> *So what is your answer?  Should we stop selling our products to China and
> other nations that engage in violations of environmental, labor and human
> rights laws?  Should we stop buying their products?  Just a simple yes or no
> would be a good start in responding to the questions.  "Depends" would
> require some explanation.
> *
>
>
> And please note that my sentence above in quotes does not focus only on
> the egregious conduct of US Internet corporations operating in China, but
> on any US corporation that may be engaging in conduct impacting labor,
> environmental or human rights moral issues in China.
>
>
> *Good, because as I have noted numerous times, I am researching that
> issue.
>
>
>
> *
>
> On 3/9/06, *Jeff Harkins* <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>  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.
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  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 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> �����������������������������������������������������
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  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/20060325/cf7d7898/attachment-0001.htm