<html>
<body>
<b>Ted, <br><br>
<br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.
</blockquote><br>
<b>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. <br>
</b> <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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, <b>in my
opinion</b>: </blockquote><br>
<b>Please note your words as the end of the sentence above "in my
opinion". In my opinion, I responded quite
"squarely".<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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. </blockquote><br>
<b>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. <br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.
</blockquote><br>
<b>So you are comparing WalMart to Nazi War Criminals?<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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. </blockquote><br>
<b>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.<br>
</b> <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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. </blockquote><br>
<b>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. <br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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. </blockquote><br>
<b>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!<br><br>
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.<br>
</b> <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.
</blockquote><br>
<b>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.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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. </blockquote><br>
<b>I think you need to stop sticking your nose in my tent. - That was of
course, a bit facetious - but to amplify a point. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">You did imply this later
alternative when you suggested that the best approach is to "provide
opportunities for the Chinese culture to see alternatives."
<b>But then applying this argument to the censorship of information in
China by US based Internet companies should have you up in
arms</b>! I guess not. </blockquote><br>
<b>There you go again - raising that issue that I have not yet prepared
myself to comment on.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On the issue of US based
Internet corporations conduct in China that has raised serious human
rights concerns, <b>I think you are dodging the issue</b> when you
responded:<br><br>
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.</blockquote><br>
<b>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.<br><br>
<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">--------<br>
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: <br>
<br>
<a href="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</a>
</blockquote><br>
<b>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?<br><br>
OK - I give up.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
OK? <br><br>
Have a nice spring break - I will be back in a couple of days.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.
<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Google last month launched <a href="http://google.cn/">Google.cn</a>, 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. <br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
Smith, a member of Congress since 1981, is vice chairman of the Committee
on International Relations, which oversees the State Department.<br><br>
----------------------<br><br>
<a href="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
</a><br><br>
Congressman Tom Lantos accused the American companies of sacrificing
human rights for business interests.<br><br>
"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." <br><br>
-----------<br><br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/9/06, <b>Jeff Harkins</b>
<<a href="mailto:jeffh@moscow.com">jeffh@moscow.com</a>> wrote:
<br>
<dl>
<dd>Hi Ted, <br><br>
<dd>I am sensing just a bit of acrimony in your queries, hopefully I am
wrong.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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 </blockquote><br>
<dd>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. <br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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. </blockquote><br>
<dd>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. <br><br>
<dd>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. <br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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." </blockquote><br>
<dd>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? <br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>I could offer documentation regarding Wal-Mart's conduct
internationally that raises moral issues, but this information has
already been posted to Vision2020. </blockquote><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<br>
</b><br>
<dd>_____________________________________________________<br>
<dd> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
<dd> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ <br><br>
<br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>