JJB Blog

Rebecca MacKinnon has been extensively covering internet censorship in China. Recently there has been some buzz about Cisco and many other U.S. companies selling certain network equipment to the Chinese government, which facilitates internet censorship (aka The Great Firewall). I’ve been following the saga for a while now, geekily captivated by the human-rights-techie-media drama, as MacKinnon gets a phone call from Terry Alberstein, Director of Corporate Affairs, Cisco Systems - Asia Pacific, and plagiarized by Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post.

A lot of the discussion is centered around which entity is responsible for regulating such activity: the companies themselves, the government, or the public? It’s an interesting issue that I think in many ways is a perfect microcosm of the failings of the current American corporate system. Instead of acting as abstractions, extensions, or even obscene exaggerations of popular ideals, corporations completely fall out of the control of their owners and directors. I can assure you that not a single shareholder or employee of Cisco believes in their hearts that “the censorship of the Internet in China is acceptable.” But if anyone in senior management started to say it was not acceptable, they would be out of a job. Instead, they convince themselves that since China is treated like any other customer, Cisco is merely exploiting a business opportunity as any company would. And to a great extent, this is the truth. Read the conversation with Terry Alberstein, linked above, to see the kind of reasoning and language to which I am referring.

MacKinnon recently got an email from Harry Wu, a Chinese human rights activist. Wu is obviously very well studied on these issues and brought up some fascinating points (emphasis and footnote are mine):

While Mr. Alberstein asserts that Cisco has not violated American law through its business dealings with the Chinese police, this is not up to Mr. Alberstein to decide. The U.S. Congress has the authority to decide if any violations have been committed. Cisco’s technology and equipment has without question made the job of Chinese police easier and more effective. Cisco has assisted Chinese security forces with their monitoring capabilities, and Mr. Alberstein lacks the authority to say that this does not constitute crime control.

Mr. Alberstein maintains that Cisco “sells networking equipment to law enforcement agencies around the world” and infers that its business activities in China are therefore identical to those in other countries. However, our issue is with China specifically, and there is a specific U.S. law that prohibits the export of crime control equipment to China. We should not believe the argument that Cisco’s sales of high-tech equipment to China are as innocuous as such sales to some other countries, and we must remember that there is a country-specific law in the Tiananmen Sanctions contained in Section 902(a)(4) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY 1990-1991 (Public Law 101-246).*

We should now ask Cisco to make public the information about exactly how much business it has done with the PSB. Every Cisco shareholder has a right to know about this information. They should publicize their profits, the quantity and date of sales and business dealings, and contacts in China, as well as the specific types of software and technology that has been sold. After Cisco has truthfully revealed this information, Congress and the American people can decide whether or not Cisco has committed a violation of the law.

I like how Mr. Wu, instead of considering whether or not a huge, uncontrollable corporation should behave “ethically,” references a specific U.S. law that forbids Cisco and other companies from participating in such activities. He speaks of the issue with a refreshing believe-in-the-system spirit, laying responsibility primarily on the U.S. government and the public to demand that Cisco be transparent with respect to its dealings with China.

*(4) CRIME CONTROL AND DETECTION INSTRUMENTS AND EQUIPMENT- The issuance of any license under section 6(k) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 for the export to the People's Republic of China of any crime control or detection instruments or equipment shall be suspended, unless the President makes a report under subsection (b) (1) or (2) of this section.
search THOMAS, 101st Congress, Bill Number: H.R.1487.ENR

ShareThis