More on China: What I said and what I didn't say

In the comments and trackback on my last post, a number of people keep concluding that I am calling for a boycott of China or a boycott of Cisco or a boycott of U.S. companies investing in China.

I said no such things - not anywhere in that post nor anywhere on this blog.

Clearly there are some misunderstandings. People are pigeon-holing me and jumping to conclusions. So let's clarify some things:

1. I am not calling for a boycott of China or of Cisco or any other companies. I am calling for closer scrutiny of exactly what is being sold directly to whom, and to what extent U.S. companies  knowingly sell technologies to Chinese state-controlled entities who are obviously going to use the equipment or software for censorship and surveillance purposes.  I want to know if these companies are providing service or customization which would make it clear that they know exactly how those technologies are going to be used - despite public claims of innocence and clean hands. 

I agree, China is better off - and the future of democracy in China is better off - thanks to the existence of Cisco routers in China. But to me, there is an important difference between selling routers to China and providing software services to China in general - with the understanding that one can't control how the technology ultimately gets used - and the sale of technology directly to Chinese government entities whose intentions are rather obvious. Way back in 2001, according to this report here by the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, Cisco was courting the Chinese Public Security bureau for business. Author Ethan Gutmann has reported similar things. As have Amnesty International and the Open Net Initiative. Cisco denies any direct involvement or knowledge in how its products were going to be used. Nobody can 100% confirm anything. But are we just going to take Cisco's word for it and leave it at that? Seems like the MSM is, and so are our government leaders, but I'm frankly not convinced. I do not believe the questions should be dropped simply because lots of people find these questions really annoying and inconvenient - or because the answers are likely to fall into murky grey areas that can't easily be defined as "good" or "evil."

2. I am in favor of free trade, I support capitalism, and I think trading with China is a good thing. Believe me, anybody who knows me at all well can tell you I'm neither a socialist nor a protectionist. After living in China for nine years straight I saw first-hand how jobs created by foreign trade and investment have vastly improved the lives of urban Chinese, helped create a nascent middle class, and helped millions of Chinese gain much greater control over their lives because they're no longer economically dependent on the government.  I don't advocate boycotting made-in-China goods just because they're made in China. However if I learn that a particular company is sourcing goods from Chinese prison labor, or from factories where workers rights are clearly abused, I'll definitely avoid buying their products. Likewise, I consider the deliberate sale of technology goods and services to the Chinese Public Security Bureau to be an unacceptable business practice, and we should ask our corporations to stop doing business with documented human rights abusers.

3. I don't think legislation or political lobbying is completely useless. We have a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It's not perfect, a lot of people violate it, but it keeps U.S. companies from engaging in the kind of blatant wholesale bribery that helps prop up nasty regimes. It is a statement of our values as Americans. It is much better that it exists than that it doesn't. We have an Arms Export Control act too. We have a long-held and established tradition as Americans that certain types of commerce are not in our national interest and are contrary to American values. Suppression of free speech is contrary to our values. The Global Internet Freedom Act, which has been introduced in committee but still un-passed by Congress, states that these are indeed our values. But it fails to set out basic standards for how our corporations ought to help protect these values. I think it should.

Why does this matter? Our President says that America stands for freedom and democracy, and that we are prepared to sacrifice the lives of our men and women to uphold these values around the globe. Yet at the same time, our corporations aren't asked to forego a penny of potential profit for the sake of these values. They dishonor our men and women in uniform and our hard-working diplomats trying to represent us under difficult and often dangerous circumstances. No wonder so many people around the world think Americans are hypocrites.

Comments

[Hans Suter]

It reads like a manifesto and I would like to sign it.

[Laowai19790204]

Even so, i wrote my senators. Final paragraphs:

This problem is real.  Without greater freedom of speech, the people of China have precious few ways of advocating better lives and real change within their country.  Without the freedom to exchange innovative ideas perhaps dangerous to the current Chinese Government, ignorance and hate are allowed to expand and take hold of an already nationalistic population.  In permitting Microsoft and Cisco Systems to enable the Chinese Communist Party to crack down on information on the internet, debates are stifled and information and news vital to informing the people in China of the world's events are lost. Furthermore, in permitting this activity we are passively allowing China to wage a war of propaganda on its people, a war that has thus far helped to create the phenomenon that we very recently saw:  the riots against Japan.  It is this hatred and malice, this racism that is partly fueled by historical mis-information that we help to create, in allowing Microsoft and Cisco Systems to help China censor its internet content.

If we do not want Europe selling technology that will help China build weapons that might be used against us, so too should we call upon these companies to halt their activities.  For it is these software companies that are helping to breed the nationalistic youths that would look to using the technologies we would keep Europe from selling.  Weapons are useless unless you have a willing army to use them.

....

perhaps a bit over the top, but maybe Gregg or Sununu will sit up and start looking into what's going on.

Peace

[GamePolitics]

Nicely done. But over at GamePolitics we've called for a boycott of Microsoft's new game system, the Xbox 360, due to launch in November. Call it the gamer-centric response.

["Charles Dodgson"]

Regarding Cisco, it's worth noting that they have acknowledged a remarkable degree of cooperation with the Chinese government in other respects. I'm thinking in particular of a speech that CEO John Chambers gave last fall, excerpted here, at the opening of a new lab in Shanghai. The speech outlined "an entire strategy of becoming a Chinese company", and acknowledged that he was not only moving his own research and manufacturing facilities into China, but was heavily pressuring his subcontractors to do the same, "candidly at the request of the leaders in your country".

More thoughts on these and other, debatably related matters here...

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

Thanks Charles. That link on the Chambers speech is very useful. Thanks for the plug on your blog too!

I'm a Chinese enginner working in the Bay Area. I work for a very well known company in the technology industry. When I walk in the hallways in my company in Santa Clara, more than two thirds of the faces are Asian, probably a third of that Chinese. My wife (also Chinese) just got her engineering PhD at Berkeley, the company who hired her told her they couldn't find enough qualified people.

American techonlogy is built with foreign talent, and in many cases, Chinese talent. I find all this talk about the Chinese stealing American IP totally offensive.

As for Cisco, Huawei can certainly fill the void...There is noting Cisco is doing that the Chinese cannot replicate or do better.

Cisco products are commodities...

["Charles Dodgson"]

I'm not sure that anyone in this thread has been talking about Chinese stealing American IP -- I certainly didn't mean to. I think some of the conversation has been about the Chinese government buying it.

As to whether the IP in question is "American": regardless of the nationality of the people writing code for Cisco, the code is owned by the company, which is in turn largely managed and (I believe) largely owned by Americans. Whether there's a whole lot of justice in this social arrangement is an interesting topic -- though, perhaps, one more appropriate for the comment section of another blog. But the people who own and control it right now are Americans, and their obligations to uphold American ideals are something that reasonable people can discuss. (Hopefully with a bit of care -- cross-cultural discussions can lead to misunderstanding in all sorts of ways even when culturally sensitive hot buttons aren't involved at all).

In the longer run it may not matter because Huawei makes petabit routers as well as Cisco. Then again, it may not matter in the longer run because Cisco succeeds in its announced ambition to "become a Chinese company" itself! But we're talking, I think, about what's happening now, and I don't think it has become one yet.

Rebecca, BTW -- you're welcome.

[Scott Butki]

Another great post. No surprise that people are twisting your words.
Keep up the good work.

[Laowai19790204]

Hmmm. I don't really want to launch into an IP debate, but I guess I'd like to ask what is offensive about accusing firms in China of stealing IP? The point of IP is that it (usually) belongs to the company, not to an individual, or a nationality. You make technology in the States because there's an investment system to support it. When China gets the sytem, they'll get the innovation. I'm not sure anyone is insulting China, unless you are interpreting "American" as a nationality, which isn't necessary.