Proponents of greater foreign engagement also see another benefit: They expect the Middle Kingdom's transition to a market-based economy will help loosen the authoritarian societal controls exerted by China's Communist Party.
Maybe so, but that's really long-term thinking. Few China experts predict dramatic changes anytime soon. Most envision an uneven interregnum that lasts quite some time--and that could force Silicon Valley to make hard choices about where to line up.
Beijing's welcome mat is contingent on foreign guests respecting the rules of the game and butting out of domestic affairs. The computer industry knows this. Whatever their personal opinions, you won't find American technology execs going out of their way to lecture their hosts about human rights. The usual explanation is that it's none of our business and the Chinese wouldn't listen, anyway. And in case you hadn't noticed, there's a gold rush going on.
However, as much as these folks might prefer to play the role of disinterested spectators, the flow of current events has a way of lousing things up.
Consider the recent dustup over the jailing of a local journalist named Shi Tao. Shi got sentenced to 10 years in jail for e-mailing an internal Communist Party message to foreign media. The message warned of the potential for social unrest in June 2004 connected with the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Last week, Reporters Without Borders said it had documents implicating Yahoo in the journalist's imprisonment. The watchdog organization said Yahoo turned over information that Chinese authorities used to trace the message to Shi Tao's e-mail account and computer. (You can hear my interview with a spokesman for Reporters Without Borders by clicking here and selecting the Sept. 8 podcast.)
This isn't the first time American information technology companies have been accused of compromising with Chinese authorities. Critics charged Microsoft's new Chinese portal with including blocks on certain words and phrases, including "democracy," "freedom" and "human rights." Elsewhere, Google reportedly filtered its Chinese-language site to omit news banned by the authorities.
But the difference here is that Reporters Without Borders charged Yahoo with active collaboration that led to someone's imprisonment. When the news broke, Yahoo's first response was to duck behind a scandalously amoral statement claiming that Yahoo was required to adhere to local regulations and customs.
A few days later, co-founder Jerry Yang finally admitted the part his company played in the Shi Tao affair. "I do not like the outcome of what happens with these things," Yang said while attending a conference in China. "But we have to follow the law."
"We don't know what they want that information for, we're not told what they look for," Yang was quoted as saying by The New York Times. "If they give us the proper documentation and court orders, we give them things that satisfy both our privacy policy and the local rules."
Yang reportedly received a nice hand from the roomful of mostly local attendees. No surprise there. China's business elites have a stake in not rocking the boat. Business is business and politics is politics. But though Yahoo says it must follow local "customs," that's a slippery slope. What if bribes are considered part of the normal business customs? What if a prohibition against females driving is also a local business custom? "Certainly there's a line between offensive and illegal, but just because something is custom doesn't mean it's OK," a former Hewlett-Packard executive wrote me after spending several years working abroad.
Of course, the United States is in no position to lecture. Nothing's preventing the Recording Industry Association of America from putting the squeeze on local Internet service providers around the country to divulge customer data so the music industry can wage its antipiracy jihad. And if anyone can guarantee that Uncle Sam won't abuse the provisions of the infinitely reaching Patriot Act, I'd like to know about it.
Still, I am disappointed at how little character our own technology leaders demonstrate under pressure. After all, many of the founding members of this community had their world view shaped by the communal and libertarian outlook of the 1960s. Is it so easy to look the other way when big bucks are at stake?
The Shi Tao case will not be the last time Silicon Valley gets put on the spot. Cuddling up to Beijing inevitably will raise discomfiting questions about globalization and the cost U.S. companies must pay to operate in the countries in which they do business.
Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
See more CNET content tagged:
Jerry Yang, Borders Books & Music, China, Yahoo! Inc., Beijing
While there's certainly no doubt in stating that China is on the verge of economic prosperity - and more power to 'em in that, they deserve it - this seems to be a popular opinion that has little backing in fact. As I'm sure you've heard financial advisors say time and time again: "past performance is no indicator of future success." This applies to anything that plays with money, countries included. I honestly believe that China is destined to be a major world player in the 21st century, but to say that the century belongs to them may be a bit off-base.
Now what kind of crazy thing is that for me to say? Look at the history. In the past, various predictions have been made about rising stars in the global economy that were supposed to overtake the US and become the next big thing. Be it Russia, Germany, Japan, the EU, what have you, all have risen to the challenge and while each has had its booms, none really fulfilled expectations. They've each become regional powers, but the "superpower" title is still largely uniquely held.
There are three parties involved in this prediction: China, the United States, and the analysts. Never mind for a minute that analysts get paid gobs of cash to take good hard looks at their morning bowel movements. The United States is still a great deal stronger, economically, than China is. Their greatest hindrance is the governmental tinkering in the economy. In recent times, they've backed off a bit, which is good, but they still have a long way to go.
Further, I suspect that we will begin to see issues regarding China's personal freedoms arise. In its current form, China is essentially two countries in one: economic, business-friendly China, and the non-economic zones outside these areas. The freedoms allowed those in the economic zones are increasing, but the countryside is still largely oppressed. Unchecked, I fear this may come back to haunt China.
>>Critics charged Microsoft's new Chinese portal with including blocks on certain words and phrases, including "democracy," "freedom" and "human rights." Elsewhere, Google reportedly filtered its Chinese-language site to omit news banned by the authorities.<<
It's important to keep in mind that while China is making great strides forward in its social awareness, those people are still not, for all intents and purposes, truly free as we are in the United States. As China is welcomed into the global marketplace as a participant instead of just a production tool, the rules will change. Since the inception of the Internet, the world has largely been playing by the West's rules. Concepts such as freedom of expression, personal privacy, and social norms are not universal by any means. As globalization continues, the rules of business will change to fit what's most beneficial for the corporations.
China's rules are neither right nor wrong. They're simply different. If Google were to stay out of China on the sole basis that they're morally opposed to external regulations, I promise you some other company would have filled the void. And with hundreds of millions of people potentially connecting to the Internet in China, I can't really blame Google for running in to get a piece of that.
Side note: how long will foreign countries have to type in "WWW..." to access the web? Why have no conventions been established to make the interface more local-friendly?
Crikey, that turned out to be quite the wall of text... Sorry about that.
From the reference to an "internal document" in the news article, should one be also asking the question of "How the internal document was obtained or what was the intention in doing so as well"?
There is really not enough information, but may be a more balanced treatment in the reporting is warranted, especially if U.S. wants to fullfill the obligation of being the super power.
We all have much to learn from the Chinese about the ultimate nature of competition and a no-holds barred capitalism.
More than one business leader that I have interviewed has espoused the totalitarian model of government being the ideal for business, not democracy.
Who among you hasn't heard the neo-con adage, "The more dollars one has, the more democracy."
Press freedom,& new media freedom of expression are the only bulwarks against capitalism that has neo-feudalism as its real intent.
Dissent, and thinking for oneself, reliance on one's own visions in the New World has fostered all kinds of inventions and innovations over the past 100 years. A cloistered community for whom "order" is seen as a greater good than personal opinion or press liberties, is always going to have to play catch up. A society with no press freedoms will always hinder the best and the brightest a society has to bring to the world.
For a very long time in Chinese history, all foreigners were seen as barbarians. Hence the Great Wall. How much has changed?
In todays climate of greed, only corporate profits matter. Not human rights, not decency, no enviromental protections, nothing is more important then the almighty bottom-line.
The sad thing is how easily coporations were able to brainwash the masses into believing that profits trumps all. Mr. Halls post is prime example. Corporations stomp all over everyone and people line up to praise them for it.
People need to understand that corporations are not operating for our benefit, but to our detriment.
This company - albeit it's Hongkong subsiduary - knowingly allowed the Chinese government to use private information contained on their servers to prosecute a Chinese citizen.
The issue here is whether international corporates have a moral obligation to protect their customer's privacy as much as possible.
When the RIAA attempted to get the identities of people thieving music via P2P, as a matter of principle the internet providers resisted all the way to the supreme court.
The point there was that even though the consequences of releasing this information pales in comparison to that of Yahoo's indiscretion, they still fought for the privacy of their customers - correctly understanding that this is what was expected of them, and giving some assurances that should a more serious breach of rights happen, the company that holds your personal information will do all that it can to protect it.
Yahoo folded at the first request, caving in to the Chinese government without even making sure that the request was legitimate or legal.
What this tells me is that I will never do business with Yahoo, because if they're willing to sell out one of their customers to the worst human rights violators this side of the Hussain dictatorship, then what will be their attitude regarding selling my information to marketing companies?
So I will never shop using their storefront, purchase plane tickets or even sign up for a free email account - not even with a false identity - because I can't trust them at all.
To use the excuse that they were legally bound to release this information is pure and simple BS. They didn't even try to contest the request in court, because they didn't want to become another Microsoft, and have their earnings trapped in China (Microsoft recently admitted to something all corporates know - getting money earnt in China out of the country is almost impossible, because their law forbids it, however if you grease the correct palms ways can be found - and were subsequently fleeced of all their earnings in that country by the Chinese government).
If terrorists were using Yahoo email accounts to communicate and the U.S. government traced them through the accounts stopping a possible attack on the U.S. would you boo and hiss because of the privacy violations? In China the government feels the same way about people who give away state secrets. I don't think that this journalist is as much of a monster as a terrorist, but in this case the journalist knew he was breaking the law, even if it was for a just cause and he was morally correct in doing it. Shame the Chinese Government didn't agree.
I am a great believer in freedom of speech, but in this case Yahoo was in the right! They followed the laws of the government and cooperated with authorities to catch a criminal, which is what the journalist was. Just because I don't agree with the Chinese Government's law does not mean I should criticize those who follow it.
One thing that people are too blind to understand is that in China there are not the methods of recourse that we enjoy in the United States. In the United States, you can go to court to defend anything, but in China that's not the case.
The Patriot Act was one example given in this article as poorly written legislation which endangers American liberties, but if you were caught in a crime under the Patriot Act it would not be the fault of a company who had the information subpoenaed by the government, it's the fault of the Government who made the law.
The dance could be a potential NET positive for both parties ... if they watch their step.
- capitalism & democracy
- by umghhh May 22, 2006 3:00 AM PDT
- democracy supports capitalism is a way our open societies chose to behave. Capitalism as a force does point direction of authoritarian regimes - they are more effective when it comes down to *convincing* people to do certain things. There are studies that prove that point.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(9 Comments)We in western and still open societies must realize that that china with its purchasing power can be and often will be (if it has not happened yet) very destructive. It is enough to think about 80 or 100 tones (who cares how much was it anyway) benzene that was allowed to flow into the river some time ago or about dam on yellow river - how many people have to die so that we consider reasonable to act. And what can we do? We have not started thinking about it yet and it may already be too late.
Let the capitalism form our society and bloodshed and war is inevitable.
//