<div>Jeff et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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? And that the economic sanctions against South Africa during apartheid were a mistake? We should have engaged in business as usual with South Africa? Or the sanctions against Iraq after Gulf War One? Those were a mistake also? And the threat of sanctions against Iran now to persuade them to alter their plans for nuclear developments? This also is a mistaken policy?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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 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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/8/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jeff Harkins</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:jeffh@moscow.com" target="_blank">jeffh@moscow.com</a>> wrote:
</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr">Ted et al</div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><span><br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">Mr. Holmquist's comments I do not think were meant to be a literal precise academic quantitative analysis. With a phrase like "every nook and cranny from Moscow Mountain to Paradise Ridge and beyond..." the reader should be able to understand this is hyperbole to make a point, and is not meant literally.
</blockquote><br></span></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><b>I would hope you are right. Nevertheless, my statements stand and do defuse the "unfettered growth argument".<br><br></b></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><span>
<blockquote type="cite">Also, the Chinese Communist Party is a small group of people in China who rule that country with methods that violate human rights. When you write "I do not accept the notion that it is appropriate for a small group of people to impose or define the standards of living or quality of life for me or anyone else." and then continue with gushing optimism about the wonderful developments capitalism is bringing China, without mention of China's human rights violations, the denial of free speech and political organizing, the kangaroo courts imposing the death penalty, the gulags holding dissidents in horrible conditions, the repression of religious freedom, and the ethical implications of US corporations conforming to or assisting in these human rights violations, I wonder how consistently you are applying your ideology, your set of ethical rules, given the apparent internal contradictions.
</blockquote><br></span></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><b>A clever approach for your argument, but I stand by my statement . I did write that "I do not accept the notion that it is appropriate for a small group of people to impose or define the standards of living or quality of life for me or anyone else." Perhaps it was not obvious, but I do prefer to confront China (and if fact transform China) and its oppressive policies using the positive persuasion of free market and free enterprise economics. The only other options would seem to be a "cold war" approach or a "hot war" approach. It would surprise me to learn that you would prefer either of the latter two options. Again, my experience over the past decade or so of working with numerous Chinese students (most of whom return to their homeland) is that there is mounting pressure on the Chinese to be involved in global trade - and the US trained Chinese will be formidable competitors. They will learn, probably much quicker than we did during our industrial revolution, that how you treat people will define how well you can compete in the world marketplace. The contemporary history of the global economy is quite clear - US corporations have paved the way. Firms like WM!
<br><br></b></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><span>
<blockquote type="cite">I won't labor the ethical problems with Wal-Mart's overseas operations, given that they have already been presented on Vision2020, but consider a different view of the "progress" US Internet related corporations are making in helping China to "democratize" on the Internet An argument can be made that US corporations are assisting in keeping China a dictatorship, that in fact the labor pool that US corporations exploit in China is being kept under control (think what might happen to this stable compliant labor pool if a democratic freedom movement swept over China?) with censorship and propaganda that in effect renders US corporations in compliance with Chinese totalitarian tactics. Even pro-business US politicians think these corporations need regulating regarding the ethical violations they are committing in China:
<br> </blockquote><br></span></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><b>Well, if you can define a better strategy for tempering the conflict between totalitatian/communist regimes and free <br>enterprise/consumer driven democracies than engaging their economy with ours please speak up - let us all hear about
<br>it. Oh, please be sure to acknowledge that China is now Idaho's number 1 export trading partner. Should we stop selling our products to them? Should we stop buying their products.?<br><br><br><br></b></div><br>_____________________________________________________
<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">
http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>