More China Moralizing--When Will It End?

The wires are once again buzzing with implicit damning of Yahoo! for helping the Chinese government prosecute critics.  At the Wall Street Journal's "D" conference, Walt Mossberg apparently asked Terry Semel about it, and Terry, admirably, answered the question (from MarketWatch).

Semel acknowledged an incident in which a Chinese blogger was arrested after authorities there tracked him down with the help of Yahoo-supplied data.

"We continue to be pissed off and are sorry about it," he said, adding that the company cooperates "as little as possible based on the laws of each country" it operates in, and tries to "push the boundaries of the law where we can" to protect its users' privacy.

Terry also provided the rationale that almost anyone in charge of a multi-national corporation would eventually arrive at--a rationale that never ceases to be ridiculed as evil, weak, and greedy by people in charge of nothing:

"What's the alternative? To walk away?" Semel asked during a sometimes testy exchange with Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Mossberg... Semel noted that China isn't the only country that forces media companies to alter their content in some way, and that the issue goes beyond Yahoo and other Internet companies.   "I don't think any one company, or even one industry, can change a country.  "Change always takes a long time. Things are better today in China" than they were 20 years ago, when he first traveled there on business, Semel said.

A month or so ago, when Google was publicly damned (again) for the same apparent sin, I asked the same question Terry asked: What is the alternative?   I would be grateful if a reader can provide a cogent, thoughtful response to this question, one that goes beyond "Just say 'no.'"  Because, in this case, "Just say 'no'" is beyond idealistic--it's vapid. 

Surely the argument is not that companies that want to operate in China should disobey Chinese laws (given that this would result in their immediately being expelled from China).  So the argument must be that operating in China under current Chinese laws is immoral and, therefore, simply not an acceptable option.  I don't agree with this--the First Amendment is a U.S. invention, not a higher moral law, and China's leaders aren't the first in history to attack people who criticize them--but I'd be eager to hear a good argument about why it is, in fact, immoral.  And I'd also like to hear a response to Terry's (true) observation that life in China is a heck of a lot better than it used to be, that sometimes the best way to improve a system is to work with it, and that more information will always be better than less.

Comments

[Victor]

first

[Victor]

If you believe, as i do, that human liberty is our highest calling, then you'll realize that free speech is just one facet of that.

[Still Inside]

Ok, not to digress into politics TOO much, but...

As for the First Ammendment being "just an American invention": It is in fact America's greatest most moral invention, and part of a handful that gave rise to every single other technical invention the US has ever created. America invented a system of poltical and economic freedom that much of the world is busy copying.

Freedom equals invention and progress, and despotism equals stagnation. History has taught us this over and over.

Henry demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of politics on any level, and for somebody that is apparently smarter than the average person, that is pretty terrifying.

This same lack of understanding of comparative religion, politics and social structure drove our current administration to think that thousands of years of tradition in Iraq would just suddenly turn into Disneyland inside of 18 months. We'll learn the lesson in Iraq, as we'll learn the lesson in China.

***

So the argument against investing in China? We'll, if you believe that politics is politics and one man's Tiananmen Square is another man's... Tiananmen Square... then why mess around with China? There are plenty of other countries to invest where markets have been crushed by stupid idealists, like Bolivia or Venezuela. Take the "policital" risk out the equasion in these places, and my god, these stocks are an incredible bargain!

SI

[KING TROLL]

Fuck you Vicor. Henry must be having some free time now.

[KING TROLL]

I have dealt with India, Bangledesh, Russia, Romania for services and supplies. I was ripped off
50% with India, 100% with Bang Russia and Romania and less than 5% with China. Chinese are very good business partners. Honest, hardworking and aim to please.

I'm not talking ripped off with internet or ebay scams. I'm talking legit businss partnership level fraud. The fuckers in the other places would rather get you for $1000-$5000 instead of making millions from you.

I don't know how China was 20 years ago, but 5 years ago when I lost all my money I thought I was going to be a working sucker making $50,000/year at a CPA firm my whole life until China came along. Never imagined the kind of money I'd make off them, so yes Henry China is better than it was 5 years ago and more than likely 20 years ago.

[Siggyboss]

I couldn't agree more with this post. None of the critics have a reasonable alternative. In addition, they assume the US Constitution has meaning in another sovereign nation – it doesn’t. They also assume Yahoo, Google, etc should just impose themselves on China's government and its military. Even though it sounds ridiculous when explained fully, that is exactly what the critics argue should be done. There is a time and place for civil disobedience, but certainly not everywhere and in every form - especially when it is at the request of those who risk nothing except face at the bully-pit.

[Neal S. Lachman]

It is incredible how IO's resident Troll has posted the best real life experience, tho be it on a micro level.

In the post of "a month or so ago" that Henry is refering to, I have given my view on why it is a good thing to do business in China. It is true, technology and business brings progress.

Less than 150 year ago, John D. Rockefeller (Sr.), the man who became the Icon of Capitalism and American Power used (critics say "abused") the lawless business landscape of America and the rest of the world to become a superpower. His Standard Oil in his America changed the business world while trampling on any kind of rights of his competitors. Haters of JDR would say that stage in history was capitalism on its worse, while admirers may say it is capitalism at its best. JDR said it is was a matter of consolidating the industry that he did what he did. On the other hand, Yahoo, Google and all western companies say it is a must to have a presence in what will turn in maybe the world's largest economy in the next 20 years.

Socio/Geo-political issues are always going to be a huge issue in growing countries/economies. Human rights are even violated by America and the UK, and some would even say in France (by for example not allowing Muslim girls wearing a head-scarve). The worse example is that Muslims still get arrested under the Patriot Act and held in jails without any kind fo trial. Ask the ACLU about that kind of issues before you point at China's Arrest of 1 guy who knowingly violates the law. Whether it is a good or bad law is another question, but the guy violated the LAW.

It is easy for arm-chair philosophers and arm-chair-chairmen of non-existent large multi-billion-dollar companies to judge the likes of Semel or Google about their forays into China's market, but frankly, you should shut up if you cannot put equal weight to all circumstances and if you think human rights in the USA and human rights in China should be seen differently.

Yes, horrific things happened in China. As SI just mentioned Tiananmen Square. But that is part of history. What about the fatalities in the USA when normal workers wanted to unionize and got shot and beaten to death by police? What about the fatalities in Central Park, Manhattan when the poor people demanded economic stability?

For once and always, stop being an arm-chair-whatever if you do not your own history. Business is a way to progress, and the likes of JDR and Henry Ford (rightly so) believed that (international) business is a way to international peace and stability.

Google, Yahoo, MSFT, go for it. China is a great place to do business. (India even greater, but that is another topic.)

[Henry Blodget]

I am not suggesting that the U.S. system is not better. I am not suggesting that Yahoo! and Semel should not feel some misgivings about handing over information that leads to an arrest for reasons that, in this country, we find repugnant. I am not suggesting that Chinese citizens would not prefer to have a First Amendment and that the country's economy would not ultimately be better for it. I am merely saying that:

1) Chinese laws are clear about what people can and can't say, so it is not as though the jailed blogger had no idea what risk he was taking.

2) Yahoo did not do anything that any China-law-abiding company wouldn't have done, and, importantly, it probably did not do anything that the blogger wouldn't have expected it to do (i.e., I don't think Yahoo! promises to keep its China users' data private).

3) To revile Semel and YahooGoogleMicrosoftEtc as immoral, you need to come up with a real alternative. If this alternative is "Doing business in China is immoral because China doesn't allow free speech," then you need to 1) Explain why, exactly, the lack of a First Amendment is immoral, even though many (most?) Chinese citizens would probably disagree with you (in my experience, the lack of free speech in China is a much bigger deal here than it is there), and 2) Condemn most of the Fortune 500, and 3) Explain why it is not better to work within the system, flawed as it is, and try to effect positive change--instead of shouting down a rain barrel from a moral high horse.

I love the First Amendment, and I wish China had one. I just don't think it is wise, realistic, or even morally superior for a company not to do business in the country until they get one.

[Victor]

Henry, what would you say about companies that chose to deal with the Nazis? Was it equally fine for them to do so? That kind of immoral choice stays with a company for the rest of its history:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609607995/

Yahoo will forever be tainted with the stain of aiding a repressive regime. I will never ever use their services again (and I'll start by ditching my yahoo email account).

[Sean]

I think you're right that taking a blanket position that doing business in China is wrong is stupid. But I think you have to admit that there are some cases when doing business with an oppressive regime would be wrong. It would be wrong to supply the Chinese military with tasers if you knew they were going to be used to torture dissidents.
I think the line is between doing business with a country governed by an unjust regime and directly collaborating with the regime in its unjust acts.

Based on this criterion, I think that Google gets its dealings with China right, and Yahoo and Microsoft get them wrong. Google agreed to change its search technology to filter out things that the Chinese government doesn't like. It'd be great if they didn't have to do that, but I don't think doing it is wrong. It doesn't actively hurt anyone, and it makes China more open.

Yahoo and Microsoft, by handing over personal data to the Chinese government, are actively collaborating with that government in its unjust acts, and actively hurting people. They are putting themselves in a position in which they are complicit with the Chinese government when it imprisions, and possibly tortures and kills, people who have done nothing wrong. I think that this is the point at which moral considerations have to trump business considerations.

In terms of "why, exactly, the lack of a First Amendment is immoral," here's approximately three hundred years of political philosophy boiled down to a nutshell: it is immoral for a government to govern people without their participation (that is, without some sort of democratic process). Without free speech, it is impossible for a democratic process to exist. Therefore, it is immoral for a government to suppress free speech. This is true regardless of whatever beliefs you may hold about whether or not most Chinese would agree. How's that?

[Victor]

hear hear! great post Sean!

[Henry Blodget]

I'm not making a blanket argument that it's okay to do business with all countries (Nazis, South Africa 20 years ago, etc.). I'm only saying that, in this case, the potential benefits outweigh the moral issues.

Do we know that Google has been asked for private information by the Chinese government and has not complied with the request? I am skeptical that they would be allowed to take the position they've taken here and retain their business license in China. My sense is that the reason Yahoo! has "helped convict a blogger" is because they've been there longer.

So any government that does not allow free speech and democracy is immoral? I don't think I agree with that. I also think that, in the case of China, it is hard to make free-speech=morality a black and white issue. The country is vastly richer than it was 20 years ago, and, given the choice--money or free speech--many (most?) of its citizens would take money (and criticize the government in private, which everyone does). Perhaps, another quarter-century down the road, the country will be far enough along in the priority hierarchy that free speech will seem as important as it does here. But all I can say from the two weeks I spent interviewing people there last year (a tiny sample, I know), the issue looms much larger in Americans' minds than it does in the average Chinese citizen's mind.

Again, this is not to say that there isn't vast room for improvement and that the decision to do business there is an easy one. It isn't. But in my opinion, it's the right one.

[Neal S. Lachman]

Victor,

Do you have any clue what a travesty you are making out of history by comparing Nazis with China's rulers?

I have lived for almost 30 years in Holland, a country devastated by Nazi atrocities. Here, I have here learned to respect History and the genocide against Jews is just horrendous. How dare you compare this?

To be clear, while my last name sounds Jewish, I am not a Jew, but a Hindu(although some of my friends call me a Hinjew).

Again, Victor, would you do a favor to humanity and just shut up? "Ignorance is not bliss", a wise man once said. Requests for a bit more respect for the victims of Nazism will most likely be just lost to you.

[Sean]

The reason that Google hasn't "helped convict a blogger" is that Google doesn't host blogs or forums and doesn't collect personal information. Google has said that it won't offer Gmail or any sort of blogging software in China, to avoid having this concern. They decided to limit how much business they did with China to avoid becoming too morally implicated, and I think they did a good job of striking a balance. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/technology/25google.html?ex=1295845200&en=2678138bc51a41b6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

In terms of whether a government that's undemocratic and doesn't allow free speech can be just, I'd be curious to hear your argument. Governments that don't have the consent of the governed are illegitimate, and I can't imagine how they could be legitimate. It's not enough that people seem to be happy and prosperous--they have to have an opportunity to say "this is the government that I want," and that opportunity has to be free and recurring. Maybe people in China _would_ choose prosperity over free speech (although it's hard for me to imagine that that would be an either-or decision), but the point is that they haven't been allowed to make that choice. I'm not saying that the right response to this is to not engage with China, or spend a lot of time talking about how evil it is, but I think it's something to be aware of.

[Neal S. Lachman]

Sean,

"It's not enough that people seem to be happy and prosperous--they have to have an opportunity to say "this is the government that I want," and that opportunity has to be free and recurring."

I'd like you to ask all those who voted for Al Gore in 2000 about having a choice to elect their government in a democratic fashion.

I love America, but some Americans are just arm-chair-whatevers. People like you should stop paternalizing others. if you want to make a change then join politics. If you want to make a statement, start a big business, and grow into a multi-ten-billion-dollar organization and THEN say NO to China. I'll wait for that to happen.

[Victor]

Neal, what a load of sanctimonious drivel. I pointed Henry to the example of IBM and the nazis because I think it's obvious there's a line we'd all want to draw in the sand. Where is that line?

I'm not saying the Chinese government is the same as the nazis at all. But I think the communists are at least as pernicious historically. How many people died as a result of "the great leap forward"? How many people died as a result of the Nazis? In both cases, far far too many.

ps And don't give me that imperious crap about not knowing history. I've read far more books and tomes on world war II history than you've read books.

[Neal S. Lachman]

Sure Victor. But reading is one thing, understanding another.

There is a 19th century saying "Education has made a vast population able to read, but unable to understand".

BTw, how many people died in the CIVIL war for the Union and the confederation?

[joe]

solution...

focusing on use of internet services, the only solution I can think of (out side a technical/engineering solution w/servers outside of china) would be to EDUCATE their users.

the problem I have with Yahoo is that they knew a producer of content not in line w/the gov line of thought can get punished. Yet Yahoo did nothing to educate their users.

Google has some sense of responsability in that they are providing a service that no one will go to jail for.

Facilitators of content production must remind their users which country they r living in and the consequences of their content. Now the question that arises is, "Are the companies responsable for user's actions?" (my answer is NO, but...) if american companies don't want negative head-lines in the USA, they will accept this responsability.

just a thought

[jj]

I think some internet companies should just collect less "tracking type" info about its users so that when subpoenaed by authorities, they can just say we don't have what you need. what ya gonna do?

[Victor]

That's not the saying dumbass. Look it up using your favourite search engine.

[justaguy]

Remember folks, just click on Neal Lachman's name and you'll get a link to his personal webpage. Look for his about me/resume/bio page, and read how many times he calls himself a genius.

i mean literally, he uses the word genius.

(it's 4 times)

the guy is off his rocker.

[Henry Blodget]

Interesting... I didn't realize Google was offering fewer services in China than Yahoo/Microsoft (blogs, etc) and not collecting user data. Perhaps that's an answer. And the education idea is excellent, too. Anyone know whether Yahoo does publicize the fact (in China) that it had to hand over data that helped convict a blogger? (Or, in some other way, let users know that they aren't anonymous?)

[China Law Blog]

China is not Nazi Germany and it is an insult to those who died at the hands of the Nazis to make that comparision. It cannot be disputed that China is more open today than it was 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and 5 years ago. Lastly, nearly everyone I know in China has some sort of workaround in place so they can see just about everything they want on the internet.

[Roy]

This is just another example of America's double standard. When Americans are condemning companies like Yahoo! or Microsoft for cooperating with foreign government within the laws of foreign countries, in the US, the Bush Administration are constantly violating the laws and getting user information, like NSA collecting phone records of everyone. Even the US courts have ruled that media companies (newspaper,etc.) must disclose the secret source of its information. Why the Americans are not outraged by that? Aren't American companies (AT&T) cooperating with the US government and providing the government user information? What is the difference?

[Victor]

Henry, Google's policy is vastly different to Yahoo's in China. There was a good new york times editorial about this maybe a month ago, describing the differences. I really recommend you read that so that you don't unintentionally conflate Yahoo's terrible policies with Google's much more thoughtful approach