The great firewall of China
DOING BUSINESS IN CHINA can be complicated, especially for a company that traffics in information. Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are all eager to expand in China, where the Internet is big and getting bigger, and all have recently come in for criticism for going along with Beijing’s restrictions on Internet use.
At a hearing before a subcommittee on human rights Wednesday, House members piled on, using words such as “disgraceful” and “spineless” and comparing today’s business operations in China to IBM’s cooperation with Germany’s Nazi government in the 1930s. As Rep. Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo) put it: “These companies tell us that they will change China. But China has already changed them.”
After the hot air went out of the hearing room, however, cooler heads emerged. Internet-savvy human rights activists, who recognize both the benefits of technology that improves access to information and the dangers of technology in the hands of autocratic overseers, pointed out that this dilemma is not necessarily unsolvable.
The choice facing U.S. businesses is not binary: leaving China or blithely going along with whatever its authorities dictate. Rather, over the long term they can stake out a smart middle ground: staying in China but adopting rules and practices that make it difficult for authorities to be arbitrary or unfair in their enforcement of China’s laws.
Industrywide standards, if they are specific and include provisions for monitoring and reporting official activity, are the best way to counter unscrupulous policing. Coming up with a set of general practices on when -- and when not -- to comply with requests to censor websites, or to hand over personal information on users, is also critical. So is requiring authorities to provide written notice of legal violations that cite a specific section of a criminal law.
China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2002 followed a long process of negotiation with business and government, and it led to changes in Chinese law to address the concerns of international businesses and governments. Similarly, Internet-related businesses should work with Congress and international organizations to promote better transparency and create obstacles to censorship.
At Wednesday’s hearing, executives from Google, Microsoft, Cisco and Yahoo looked alternately sheepish and lawyerly as they acknowledged discomfort over past actions (a few of which led to the jailing of Chinese customers) while repeatedly proclaiming that their hands were tied by the need to obey Chinese law. That position is naive. China’s constitution promises a right to privacy of communication as well as freedom of speech. Chinese authorities are only starting to worry about the legality of their actions, and U.S. businesses need not mindlessly comply.
