Journalists turning up the heat on Cisco and others

Coming up for air after a computer crash and ongoing work on our Global Voices redesign...

I see that Greg Walton points to Hiawatha Bray's latest Boston Globe article on... guess what? Unanswered questions about the extent to which U.S. firms may actively be assisting Chinese police to censor and stifle dissent. Bray begins the article, "China's net police should worry U.S. firms," with quotes from Chinese human rights activist Harry Wu, who is concerned that U.S. firms might be breaking a U.S. law forbidding the sale to China of instruments and equipment for use in "crime control and detection."

He quotes a Cisco spokesman who says police worldwide use Cisco equipment, but that his company isn't actively doing anything to help stifle dissent. These brochures, however, would seem to indicate otherwise.

He quotes Dawn Wolfe of Boston Common Asset Management, which is "having second thoughts" about its Cisco investments. Along with Domini Social Investments, Boston Common has filed a shareholder resolution demanding that Cisco should investigate allegations of active assistance in Chinese law enforcement, and report on the company's human rights practices. Wolfe tells Bray: ''What we want from them is more information about the policies and processes they have in place, to make sure they're not complicit in these abuses."

Bray concludes:

...by merely selling its gear to the Chinese, Cisco may not be complicit in the country's wrongs. But apart from offering up some noble words, it's not clear that Cisco is doing business decently -- and there are worrying hints that it may not be.

Cisco may not be violating US sanctions, even if the company's gear is helping to stifle the freedom of millions. Proof that Cisco's policies are legal might get Harry Wu off the company's back. The rest of us shouldn't be so easily satisfied.

Agreed.

Comments

[Eric Olander]

Rebecca:

While i've always respected your perspective on Chinese politics, I think you are on the wrong side of the issue with regards to Cisco, Microsoft and other technology companies operating in China whose products are allegedly being used to stifle dissent and the freedom of expression.

Fundamentally, the burden of pressuring national entities such as the Chinese government can only come from other equally powerful governments. While corporations are not beyond question, one could argue that CSCO and MSFT's presence in China serve much more as a catalyst for expanding the freedom of expression through greater access to technology and technology services than whatever role they serve the PSB in stifling dissent. China, as you know, is undergoing a profound transformation where freedoms are steadily expanding and even though CSCO equipment is allegedly being used for oppressive means, on balance Chinese civil liberties are steadily, albeit slowly, moving closer to international norms.

Missing from your critique is outrage that the Bush administration has relegated human rights to a secondary status in its dialogue with China. Regretably, this is yet another instance of how the international human rights community is once again missing the big picture in China while avoiding the real failure in Washington's misguided China policies.

Respectfully,

Eric Olander