[Vision2020] Human Rights: China, Re: Yahoo In Court, Google Censors

[Ted Moffett]

Jeff Harkins, et. al.

Harkins does not address all critical facts and issues in his response
to this thread, while downplaying the actual and potential "wrong" of
US corporate complicity with the Chinese Communist dictatorship,
especially when viewing this issue in the broad context of the abuse
of human rights, privacy rights, and free speech, both domestically
and internationally.  He also distorts the meaning of a statement I
made, to assert what he calls the "the difference between Moffett and
me," a statement I will clarify for Harkins in a manner that
highlights what I trust are shared values between us.

First off, Harkins should be corrected about his implication I was
suggesting some sort of "conspiracy" in the case of Yahoo cooperating
with China's dictatorship.  I was not.  I was simply stating the facts
in this case, that Yahoo gave personal information about Yahoo
customers, to China's dictatorship, upon their request, that resulted
in two men being jailed as political prisoners; and that Google
censors its search engine in China, keeping critical information from
the Chinese people, specifically about the Tienanmen Square massacre,
and the torture and jailing of Falun Gong practitioners.  Facts, Mr.
Harkins, not "conspiracy."

Harkins wrote:

> 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 might be clear to Moffett, I have yet to be persuaded that the
> current state of affairs is a "conspiracy."

Also, I have no clue why you write that it seems I am "interested in
calling me on a carpet and attacking me personally."  You indicated
previously in a Vision2020 post you would respond at a later date
about Yahoo and Google's operations in China under discussion.  Given
the court case in the USA Yahoo settled on this subject in recent
months, it appeared timely to bring the subject up again.

I am only interested in an objective fact based logical discussion of
these important issues.  Pointing out that critical facts are being
down played, or issues slanted based on political or economic beliefs,
or that those in a discussion have differences in the practical
application of ethical principles, does not make the discussion
"personal."  This is merely honest and forthright dialog and debate.

Now, to flesh out some issue Harkins seemed reticent to fully explore
(in my opinion):

On 12/24/07, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:

> Fortunately, I don't have to weigh in very much - looks like the matter has
> been resolved in the short run - but not in the manner implied by Moffett.
> No fault was admitted by Yahoo.

This statement is simply false, according to statements in the
Washington Post article referenced in this thread.  In the legal
language of the settlement offered the families of the political
prisoners jailed in China, no fault by Yahoo is admitted; but this is
a legal technicality frequently employed in civil settlements where it
is well known that a wrong was committed by an entity that wishes to
limit its damages while still settling the case.  From the Washington
Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111300885.html

At last week's hearing, Yang apologized to relatives of the prisoners,
who were sitting behind him. He later met with the families privately.

Yahoo "admitted this is wrong and would not happen again," said Laogai
Research Foundation executive director Harry Wu, who translated for
the families during their visit to the United States. Wu said the
families were returning to China but that the two imprisoned
dissidents were not yet aware of the settlement.
----------------------

Also, the article states as a matter of fact that is not in dispute that:

The men were sentenced to 10-year prison terms for crimes against the
state after Yahoo gave their e-mail records to Chinese officials.
Their families sued Yahoo last April in U.S. District Court in
Northern California.
----------------------
After pressure from the US Congress with a "subpoena like request,"
according to the article, Yahoo chief executive Yang testified before
the US Congress on this issue.  If there was no evidence whatsoever
that Yahoo had complied with China's dictatorship in this case, I
doubt that Yahoo's CEO would have bent to the pressures from the US
Congress to address this issue.

Harkins wrote:

> Hmmm - the US Congress wins, the lawyers
> win, Yahoo wins (helping establish their role as a humanitarian company),
> the advocacy groups win, the Chinese families sort of win, and China loses.
>

This approach to summing up the critical winners and losers in this
case, and Harkins statement that the "matter has been resolved in the
short run," is disturbing insofar as Harkins makes no mention of the
political prisoners China imprisoned with Yahoo's help, still
imprisoned.  Until China releases these two men from jail, the human
rights abuses in this case have not been "resolved."  China's
dictatorship is "winning" not "losing" if they continue to create a
climate of fear of political speech among their citizens based on the
threat of long imprisonment.  Two human beings are serving ten year
prison sentences for engaging in what every civilized democracy in the
world considers a fundamental human right, free political speech.
Releasing these political prisoners in China would be a major step
forward for human rights.

Harkins wrote:

> It is impossible for me to conclude anything about the underlying events
> other than the fact that, at the end of  the day thus far, free speech, as a
> result of the Yahoo incident, has been brought to the front pages for some
> time, as well as China's lack of free speech.

Why Harkins writes concluding anything beyond what he states above is
"impossible" I do not know, given the critical and broad human rights
issues involved in this matter, while those jailed in this case remain
behind bars.  He then goes on to suggest a "conspiracy" theory that
the matter may have been concocted to "force the issue," and poses a
question:

> Is it possible that the whole
> matter was concocted as a means of forcing the issue?  It certainly seems to
> me that China is the one with egg on their face - and it was concluded
> without military action.  Hmmm, almost as if Jack Higgins (Harry Patterson),
> Robert Ludlum or Tom Clancy  was running the show.  Ted, would you prefer a
> military solution to advancing human rights in China?

Simply, no.  But I think all US corporations operating in China should
be held to high standards of respect for human rights, free speech
rights, freedom of access to information, environmental standards, and
labor rights.  This would serve as an example of respect for human
rights, both to the dictatorship in China and to the Chinese people .
And if holding US corporations to these high standards means China
would limit or ban these corporations from operating in China, this is
the price that would be paid to respect human rights as an absolute
ethical principle.

Human rights above the pursuit of profit?  Is this a concept Harkins
might endorse in some cases?  Or does he believe that the logic of the
competitive "free" marketplace (the marketplace in China, I would
argue, is not "free" when the Chinese people are held hostage by a
dictatorship that executes thousands every year with limited legal
protections, and will imprison for the mere act of political speech)
always eventually ensures the maximization of human rights?

Harkins appears to be making the often asserted, "wrongs committed for
a greater good in the long run" ethical argument to justify ethical
misconduct by US corporations.  But this is a slippery slope that can
serve to legitimize abuse of human rights, even abuse of US
Constitutional rights for US citizens, by corporations cooperating
with governments, both internationally and domestically.  This ethical
argument, or variations of it, are often used to excuse or downplay
labor abuses (underage labor, prison labor, sweat shops, and other
labor abuses, especially relevant in the case of China with numerous
unjustly imprisoned political prisoners, etc.), environmental abuses,
and in the case under discussion, cooperation with a dictatorship in
imprisoning merely for political speech, and other support offered to
authoritarian regimes, by US corporations operating internationally.
The argument is that in the long run US corporate operations in these
nations will advance industrial development, well being, and
eventually democracy, rendering the "free world" more secure, while we
fight the "bad guys," once the communists, now the terrorists.

On the issue of privacy rights, certainly involved in the Yahoo China
case, Harkins statement that "It is inconceivable to me that someone
who posts or uses publicly available bandwidth can have an expectation
of privacy." is perhaps a hastily written comment, given the
encryption and secure connections used in the information marketplace
to ensure a high expectation of privacy in Internet based commerce,
covering credit card numbers, etc?  And I must point out that US
public utilities, i. e. phone companies, once would not cooperate with
government phone taps on private conversations without a court order:
this should be emphasized to highlight how civil rights in the US are
being eroded.

Certainly Harkins is aware of the complicity of US corporations in
violating fourth amendment US Constitutional rights of US citizens in
their cooperation with "wire tapping" the communications of US
citizens without a court order or warrant, bypassing the FISA and
other courts?  Of course the argument is made over and over that we
require a weakening of civil rights (a wrong) to protect US citizens
from terrorism (the long term greater good), etc.  But this quote from
Benjamen Franklin is also frequently cited to rebut this erosion of
civil rights:

"Those we sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Many in the US who wish to take a firm stand on protecting US
Constitutional rights for US citizens are very concerned about the
slippery slope of weakening of civil rights in the USA; and the Yahoo
case in China is disturbingly similar in some respects to the domestic
conduct of some US corporations.  Verizon has admitted turning over
data on US citizens to government agencies without a court order:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101501857.html

Congressional Democrats have been largely stymied in their efforts to
have the Bush administration disclose the scope and nature of its
surveillance and data-gathering efforts after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks. Revelations have come through press reports, advocacy groups'
Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and Justice Department inspector
general reports.

In May 2006, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had
been secretly collecting the phone-call records of tens of millions of
Americans, using data provided by major telecom firms. Qwest, it
reported, declined to participate because of fears that the program
lacked legal standing.
------------------------

Now, to correct Harkins distortion of my statement he references below:

Harkins wrote:
>
> I do find it interesting that Moffett states, 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!  That may be the
> difference between Moffett and me.  If I had been China's premiere, I would
> dissolve the Communist Party.

I think it is clear that I was not literally asserting what I would do
or "think" if I was in reality the leader of China.  And Harkin's
should know this, given the context of my comments vehemently opposing
China's human rights abusing dictatorship.  I was placing myself in
the mind of China's leader, to make a reasonable guess as to how he
might view the success of China's dictatorship in "compromising the
democratic idealism of the USA," exemplified in part by Yahoo and
Google's actions in China under discussion.

I propose to Harkins that we do not differ on what either of us would
do if we were literally the leader of China, regarding Yahoo and
Google's actions outlined in this thread.  Neither you nor I would
jail a Chinese citizen for political speech, nor would we demand that
Google censor information on the Tienanmen Square pro-democracy
movement massacre or the torture and imprisonment of Falun Gong
practitioners.  Correct me if I am wrong.

In closing my response, I will address Harkins statements below, which
are important issues, and illuminate the motivations, whether noble or
otherwise, of US corporations operating internationally:

> And of course, you seem to discount substantially the
> progress being forged by US technology companies
> (and US policy) in building those technology links with
> Chinese citizens and businesses.

When progress is being "forged by US technology companies," wonderful!
 Yes, our discussion, and the focus on human rights in China the Yahoo
case has inspired, is a good development.

However, I am not naive enough to imagine that the primary goal of US
based technology companies in China is the idealistic advancement of
human rights and democracy.  They wish to gain market share in the
largest emerging marketplace on Earth, and if cooperating with a
dictatorship advances this profit oriented aim as they compete with
other companies, then so be it, it would appear.

I do not view establishing precedents of government surveillance
resulting in the jailing of political prisoners, and government
censorship of critical information constructing the information
technology of censorship to maintain a dictatorship's political power,
to deceive their citizens, as "progress."

I suppose we are back to the justifying "wrongs committed for a
greater long term good" argument, that you appear to be making to
"excuse" Yahoo and Google's actions in China under discussion.  Your
argument has merit, I acknowledge, given that in the long run the
information technology infrastructure Yahoo and Google is establishing
in China may cease being used to deny rights and access to critical
information to the Chinese people in the manner under discussion, and
may help promote democracy in the long run, if a true democracy is
ever established.  If.

I think where we differ is how much cooperation should be accorded a
dictatorship when this cooperation becomes not an encouragement for
reform, but a validation of the dictatorship, potentially delaying the
emergence of democracy.  And the extent to which accepting human
rights abuses, labor and environmental abuses, and free speech and
information restrictions, calling them "a few broken eggs," as you
phrased it below, is in reality a slippery slope that sets precedents
and jeopardizes these rights around the world, even in the USA.  At a
certain point, the "wrongs committed for a greater long term good
argument" breaks down, and becomes a flat out inexcusable
justification for human rights abuses that are always wrong, in my
opinion.

Calling human rights abuses "a few broken eggs to make an omelet" is a
mockery of the suffering human beings are subjected to by
authoritarian states, as in the case of the two Chinese citizens
rotting in prison in China as political prisoners connected to the
Yahoo case.  I could make a long well documented list of the "broken
eggs" connected to US corporate involvement in dictatorships around
the world, broken eggs that have not resulted in the advancement of
human rights or democracy.

I respect our shared heritage of US democratic values too much to
imagine that you think it is ethically correct for Yahoo to submit to
demands to turn over personal information to a dictatorship resulting
in the jailing of political prisoners merely for exercising political
speech, or Google's blatant censorship of information to enable
China's dictatorship to maintain it's hold on power.

Harkins wrote:

> Bottom line - I accept the developments of US technology companies in
> broadened communications throughout the world - and especially in repressed
> or totalitarian states - in fact I applaud them.  An omelet usually requires
> a few broken eggs.
>
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett