An erudite but ultimately exhasperating piece on Google in China yesterday appeared on the Becker-Posner blog:
"Last week a congressional committee questioned representatives of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Cisco concerning Chinese censorship and surveillance of Internet services (and in the case of Cisco, equipment) provided by these companies.
"... In general, U.S. companies, including Internet companies, are required to comply with the laws of every country in which they operate. Thus, for example, they have agreed to block access, in France and Germany, to Nazi Web sites, pursuant to those countries' laws against Nazi advocacy ... Of course there is a difference between foreign laws that we regard as defensible, including some laws, such as those forbidding Nazi advocacy, that would be unconstitutional in the United States (which has by international standards an extravagant conception of freedom of speech), and laws that we regard as contrary to fundamental human rights, which is an accurate description of Chinese laws designed to suppress political freedom and, in the case of persecution of the Falun Gong and of some Christian sects, of religion as well.
"If China were a small, poor country, its violations of human rights might induce international sanctions, such as were imposed on Rhodesia and South Africa before the fall of their racist regimes. But because China is an enormous country, rapidly developing, soon to be--perhaps already--the second largest economy in the world, and very much open to investment by foreign, including U.S., companies, sanctions are out of the question as a practical matter.
"... The deeper question is whether it is in the U.S. national interest either to promote Chinese democracy, religious freedom, etc. or to impede Chinese economic growth by inducing it to curtail its people's access to the Internet beyond the current censorship. The answer probably is "no" ... A possible intermediate solution, however, would be to forbid U.S. economies (or for them to agree under pressure of American public opinion) to assist the Chinese government in surveillance of their customers."
Let me try and put some of this beligerant - ableit intelligently written - rhetoric into perspective for Judge Posner. I have argued here before that Google's entrance into China is a positive step in the right direction as far as implicating the spread of democracy by western standards is concerned, and for a very good reason. If His Honour cared to take a quick glance at Chinese history, he might begin to notice a pattern that has been emerging over the last three decades: that namely, the political structure of China has become increasingly capitalist in its modus operandi.
This is not down to any coincidence - one of the central reasons Deng Xioaping was able to begin the process of opening specialised regions of China (Special Economic Zones) to foreign investment in the early 1990's was precisely because the environment had been created by the gradual infiltration of capital that had already been coming from outskirting territories such as Hong Kong and Malaysia for years before. Those investors who initially placed capital in the hands of former Mao-Xedong's China most certainly had to accede some personal ethical issues, but the point is, the accession has proved worth it in the long run: over a very short space of time, China has become a more liberal, more democratic environment than any pundit could have ever reasonably speculated twenty years ago.
Posner misses the point supremely in even contemplating the idea of sanctions: it is precisely the opposite effect of having not talked of sanctions whatsoever, but constinually excercising patience with regard to China's liberalisation of Communism which has brought about the phenomenal changes that can be witnessed today.
The simple, undeniable truth is that the more Western companies that enter China, the more China accepts by default a western political modus operandi. This is the most basic-level sociology: organisations the size of Google have two critical components of influence - a culture, and lots of capital. What has been so disheartening in all the recent fuss the United States has been making over the entrance of its national institutions into China is that the constitution was founded on principles by Adam Smith, the father of the ideology around this governing capitalist principle.
If Posner and Congress are still unconvinced, they should take a trip to Hong Kong. Hong Kong is not the great capitalist power-house and pearl of democracy in the Far East it is because of the hesitance of Western corporations in the twentieth century to enter it: it is precisely the way it is because these organisations embraced concessions and in doing so were able to make progress in changing cultural trends. Sure, Hong Kong is a former colony of Great Britain, but in an actual sense, this didn't translate into much of a competitive advantage - western organisations had to persuade their Chinese consumers - who came from a completely alien culture - that what they were selling was worth the price they were asking.
If, after all of the above, Congress is still so concerned with the entrance of its national institutions into China then maybe it should ask itself why it has allowed Beijing to store all her national capital reserves in U.S. government bonds. Posners suggestion is just untenable: the U.S. can hardly forbid her economies to assist the Chinese government in surveillance of their customers whilest using all her excess capital to prop up its own growing national deficit.
The irony is that it is the same right-wing religious contingency that allowed this capital surplus to develop in its coffers in the first place that now wants to stem the tide - unfortunately for them, as the old Wall Street addage goes, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Comments