<div>Jeff et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. <br>---------</div>
<div>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. 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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:</div>
<div><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.</div>
<div>--------</div>
<div>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:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-02-12-china-net_x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-02-12-china-net_x.htm</a></div>
<div>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p></div>
<div>
<p>Google last month launched <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://google.cn/" target="_blank">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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>Smith, a member of Congress since 1981, is vice chairman of the Committee on International Relations, which oversees the State Department.</p>
<p>----------------------</p>
<p><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-01-voa86.cfm?CFID=36781401&CFTOKEN=57788209" target="_blank">http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-01-voa86.cfm?CFID=36781401&CFTOKEN=57788209
</a></p>
<p>Congressman Tom Lantos accused the American companies of sacrificing human rights for business interests.</p>
<p>"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."
</p>
<p>-----------</p>
<p>Ted Moffett</p>
<p>P.S. I do not boycott Wal-Mart. I do shop there occasionally, with similar misgivings to those I have when I fill my gas tank, knowing the questionable moral consequences of that economic act. The issue of moral compromises and when they are justified, if ever, is a thorny subject many avoid, often because a frank and thorough analysis reveals we all engage in questionable moral compromises. But it is obvious I find the current US Federal government too friendly to allowing egregious moral conduct by US based multinational corporations on the domestic or international stage, in the name of "free markets" and profits.
</p>
<p> </p></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/9/06, <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">Hi Ted, <br><br><b>I am sensing just a bit of acrimony in your queries, hopefully I am wrong.<br><br></b></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><span>
<blockquote type="cite">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></span></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><b>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></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><span>
<blockquote type="cite">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></span></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><b>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>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></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><span>
<blockquote type="cite">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></span></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><b>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></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><span>
<blockquote type="cite">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></span></div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr"><b>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>
</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>