As happens to every Communist regime or party, the Chinese government reacts about as well to the free voicing of ideas contrary to the official line as a Gremlin does to eating after midnight. Communism’s supposed compassionate and generous concern for humankind has always shut free thought away in some Gulag or concentration camp. But that is well known, although Europe closes its eyes to such logical consequences and prohibits Nazi organizations while allowing Communist ones to run for election. What is not, or should not, be considered normal are Western companies collaborating with the State’s effort to repress its people. And even less so when we are dealing with companies whose existence depends on freedom.  

 

The Internet’s “Big Three” all have restrictions on their operations in China. Bloggers using Microsoft MSN Spaces cannot write anything containing the words “freedom” or “democracy;” they make the Communist leadership break out in a rash. Yahoo signed an agreement in 2002 promising to exercise self-discipline. In China, Google News excludes news sources the government in Beijing has decided to censure. While the search engine leader justifies its actions saying it would be uncomfortable to show news items Chinese web surfers couldn’t read because of State imposed controls, the first two excuse themselves with the argument they are only following the law. After decades of attempts to substitute morality for law, it is tough to find businessmen who go beyond the letter of the law to restrict themselves even more.    

 

The recent death of Rafael Termes reminds us organizations can follow three types of ethical behavior: take as a guide what others will say, what the law says or the quality of human beings forming the organization. In the case of the reporter sentenced to ten years in prison for exposing “state secrets,” Yahoo, in what represents a qualitative jump in the history of collaboration with Beijing, did not have too many options, especially if it is true the state never said why they asked it for data on the dissident. It could cooperate, demand the right to veto cooperation with the Police in matters affecting basic human rights, flatly refuse to collaborate or give up doing business in China. In practice, it is probable these options really came down to the first and the last. Should foreign companies refuse to work in countries where they might be forced to collaborate in violating human rights? One could deduce their presence, even in collaboration with the regime, keeps the country from closing itself off to every foreign influence. But it is difficult to sustain this utilitarian argument when we are talking about human rights.

 

However, no matter how ethically despicable these Internet companies behavior is in China, everyone should remember the real responsibility for sentencing people to jail for speaking their minds lies with the Communist regime. Chinese leaders make the laws, order the persecution of dissidents and send the police to find incriminating information. But it would be good if the Internet’s major multinationals set an example and refused to collaborate with the authorities, although it looks unlikely to take place once a company is invested in the country. Censorship will, in the end, probably prove useless at impeding the ideas of freedom from reaching the Chinese people and dissidence will survive Western businesses’ collaboration against them. But the directors, workers and users of Yahoo could then look themselves in the mirror knowing they never collaborated.