Company vs. Country Hrush
Any privately held company that threatens a country and demands changes to domestic policy has more than a few screws loose in the heads of its management team, not to mention a monumental sense of hubris. Ethically speaking, in a situation where a Corporation goes up against a Country, the Country is the right side to be on. No company, anywhere in the world has any business dictating to an independent sovereign republic. Period.
The company may well be acting in defence of its own principles, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is nothing on earth that gives a company the right to foist its own beliefs on a country or throw tantrums if they are not allowed to dictate domestic policy. Each country has the right to decide how it will be governed and what laws it will create and enforce.
Let’s imagine, for a moment, that General Electric wanted to dictate domestic policy to the Indian government. GE is a powerful global corporation with significantly large operations in India–it employs over 12,000 people and has revenues in excess of $2.6 billion. GE plays a crucial role in India and is heavily involved in many areas of core infrastructure development. GE businesses are helping India build healthcare, transportation, aviation and energy infrastructure. GE Capital is one of India’s largest commercial and personal financial services businesses.
So, imagine what would happen if GE decided to give our government an ultimatum: “Reverse your stand on climate change or we will stop doing business in India.” How should the Indian government react? How would the average Indian perceive this ultimatum delivered to our government by a for-profit American corporation? I imagine that we, Indians, would be outraged. I imagine that our national sense of pride would be indignant. I imagine that we would ask what gives this bloody company the right to tell us how to run our country. I imagine that we would show GE the door and kick it on its ass on the way out.
Foxconn is a Chinese company; it is the world’s largest manufacturer of electronics and computer components. Among other things, Foxconn manufactures iPhones, iPods and Mac Minis. Imagine what would happen if Foxconn began to dictate to the United States government. What if Foxconn stated that unless America changed its gun control laws, it would stop doing business with the country?
How would America react? I imagine the American government and the American people would react with a violently profound sense of outrage at Foxconn’s arrogance. I imagine that the media fallout from Foxconn’s demand would reverberate around the world for years. I imagine that Barack Obama would be screaming for the heads of Foxconn’s management team on a platter.
In both of the above hypothetical examples, a company is demanding something that seems like it is the right thing, the moral thing, the noble thing. The citizens of the country in question, however, would not perceive it that way–they would perceive it as an egregious trampling of their country’s sovereignty and independence. And that is the right way to perceive such a demand, because no company on earth has the right to tell my country what to do.
This is the reason that no company has the right to tell the Chinese government what to do. In principle, I do not personally agree with censorship, and I don’t know anyone that does; but I have to side with China on this one–because no company on earth has the right to tell a country what to do. That is the job of governments.
That is crazy talk! Don’t confuse the government of China with the people of China. You say "country" in the title of this post implying that the two, the government & country, are the same.
have to agree with Adnan…. this article is just a bunch of crazy talk……
Quite a silly stance.
Google isn’t telling China what to do.
Google’s saying: Hey – we’re a business based on delivering information to users. Our philosophy is about freedom of information and no censorship. You ask us to censor results and leave out inconvenient truths. We don’t want to, as it’s against our philosophy. So we’re leaving, even if it costs us money to leave.
That’s it. They’re not forcing the Chinese government to do anything.
Of course by their act, now the whole world and every single Chinese netizen now knows that the Chinese government is an authoritarian, insecure regime that censors stuff every day.
And of course, the Chinese government doesn’t like this. Maybe it won’t lead to their downfall. Maybe it will. Either case. they’ve made an attempt – something others haven’t yet chosen to do.
And by doing so they’re showing that they have the balls to do what Microsoft or others can but choose not to.
It’s something worth applauding. Not whining about.
People in China have no voice. Mothers in China are forced to kill their second child. They have no freedom of expression and are dealt with violently if they disagree with the Government. The Chinese Government want to prevent the progressive and democratic voices from around the world to influence the citizens of China. That’s the true reason for the stand that Chinese Government is taking.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/world/asia/24china.html?pagewanted=2
Apple fanboism taken to the extreme of beating down on its competitor with a ridiculous argument.
Hrush – I have a serious personal favor to ask of you. What do you smoke – lend us some, or let us know where u buy it from. I’d love to experiment with anything that makes one so delusional & hyper at the same time.
@Mahesh–what do you call Eric Schmidt saying Google would like a larger role in shaping China’s domestic policy if not telling them what to do? In essence, Google has said that China must let them run an unfiltered search engine or they will leave. Saying that this isn’t "telling China what to do" is disingenuous.
Shailja–the point of the post is not to defend China; the point is that a for-profit American company has no business telling an independent sovereign republic what they should or should not do.
i agree with the principle that private enterprise should not attempt to dictate government policy. however, the situation is not as cut and dry as you suggest. for example, what about the cyber attacks that hackers have orchestrated on behalf of the Chinese government on Google? Should a company take such abuse with mai-baap salute?
Everyone is free to express themselves, even corporates! Why can’t corporates express themselves?
Google was just expressing itself when it quit China! Eric was doing the same on behalf for Google when he spoke at Davos.
Hrush was expressing himself when he bashed Google.
My view: I support Google’s decision.
The concept of a ‘country’ itself is so new, may be 400-500 years old. There is no need to ‘idolize’ countires and ‘demonize’ corporates. Few hundred years down the line, we may go back to the concept of ‘city states’, or may be clans (aren’t ‘corporates’ akin to clans!)
The post is lame & is in line with the Google bashing that readers of this blog are not new to. But the examples are even more outrageous! How can you state examples like (however hypothetical they may be) GE shaping India’s Climate Control policy & Foxconn calling the shots on America’s ‘gun control laws’ with Google not wanting to censor IT’S search results?
Also, you take a controversial stand when you call Foxconn a Chinese company.. It’s based out of Taiwan
you are out of your sense… and have a very limited vission as well… because of people like you there are countries in the map…. for no good.
if govt is an asshole… every living thing on this planet has the right to tell that asshole whats wrong or whats right.
Another problem *solved* by Global Warming http://bit.ly/cuVHsi
Dude! You have seriously lost it!
Hrush,
Saying "I’ll not be launching my product in this country because you don’t let me launch it as I deem fit" is not a threat. It is a statement of business principle. China can and will exist without Google. And vice versa.
If Cleartrip were to go to China, and the Chinese government were to say that a condition of Cleartrip doing business in China be that Cleartrip report to it the names of all Tibetans in India booking tickets on Cleartrip in India, would you sell out your Tibetan customers in India and comply?
If not, why not?
And if so, would you then defend your compliance with some twaddle about "I’m just a company so if a country tells me to bend over and spread ‘em wide, I’ll just ask them how wide"?
You’ve been a principled businessman so far.
Your post – rabid anti-Google sentiment apart – is an ode defending spinelessness.
Something, surprisingly you and your firm have not displayed so far.
It is so far off the respect I have for this brand Cleartrip and what I imagine Cleartrip to be, I am surprised it even came from this company.
Regards
Mahesh
Hursh, I totally agree with the point you were trying to make, "for-profit companies from another country do not have the right to impose their beliefs on another independent sovereign country." I am astonished by most of the comments on this post. To say the least you shouldn’t think too much into comments like, "It is so far off the respect I have for this brand Cleartrip and what I imagine Cleartrip to be, I am surprised it even came from this company…" or other rants. (Note: I deeply respect the commenter and my respect for him and his company remains unchanged)
Hrush
I am a believer in freedom of speech, for individuals as well as companies/brands. I don’t know the exact words that Google said or that the Chinese Govt. said, but I do believe in one thing, Whatever you do, do it well!
Its Google’s policy to provide whatever information/data the user is searching for, if the Chinese Government does not support the view, & Google does not want to alter its policy just to enter another nation, its fine!
Best regards
Sambhav Karnawat
Jewelove (TM)
I think I will agree with Hrush here. The defense of freedom of speech or freedom in general is a matter of social responsibility. A company (for-profit) may support social change if it deems fit, but has no business to interfere in the political situation of a sovereign country. That is the job of social organisations and governments and people in general. Only these are in a grass-root position to understand the needs of the local people.
This time Google’s stand is probably morally for the better of the Chinese people – but even then, it is for those people to decide if they want change, not Google. If the Chinese people want more freedom they should fight for it – as history shows, everyone has had to do it. If Google feels so badly about it, it should form a non-profit arm for social change and/or support existing organisations who are fighting for this.
It might be very easily the case in the future when such a powerful business as Google may use it’s position to impose a less than moral demand on a smaller country. I am sure there must be cases of powerful corporations arm-twisting weaker nations or communities.
regards,
quasi
@Mahesh: Its so unfair you have to make a brand accusation. Hrush made an opinion, you made your points and so be it. Why bring Cleartrip into it? What sanity do you possess? If politicians are corrupt in India, would you castigate the entire country?
hey you responders to Hrush’s blog. A blog expresses an opinion about a certain topic. While you are free to disagree with the viewpoint, personalising it and attacking the blogger for expressing his viewpoint is sad and pathetic. While i definitely agree it is google’s prerogative to get out of a country as it disagree with the conditions being imposed on it and i support it telling china off, i certainy dont support being abusive to the blogger even though his view is different. Get a grip people and find a way to share your opinions not your frustrations
@Mahesh — we wouldn’t go to China in the presence of those laws in the first place.
You say, ""I’ll not be launching my product in this country because you don’t let me launch it as I deem fit" is not a threat." What you’re conveniently omitting in this argument is that Google <strong>did</strong> launch in China and censored results for four years. It’s not like they refused to enter China because they didn’t like the laws. Once again, it’s disingenuous to suggest that Google is merely not launching in China.
Many thanks for the respect you have for the Cleartrip brand; it is a brand operated and supported by many, many principled people and that is what makes us consistently behave in a principled manner.
There’s just one answer to this issue:
Human Rights are more important than sovereign rights. If my government was forcing censorship down my throat, I would hope and pray for an outside company to try and force the country’s hand to restore my rights.
Here are some more opinions on the matter:
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/rights-and-freedoms/human-rights-sovereign-rights.html
Tush,
IMHO, a well deserved mauling for posting such rot! :O
Russ
@Hrush How far does this argument extend? Would it be same if a news organisation were to expose the rights violations by a regime and take a stand demanding either, change the regime, or change policies by the regime? Would this also extend to a consortium of companies who demand better policies/enforcements to avoid atrocities etc practiced by an existing regime? Please note, both forms of corporations mentioned above will be for-profit.
Why must a for-profit company based anywhere but with operations in any other country not ask for better governance or rights? Why does the pursuit of profit disqualify a company from taking an ethical stand?
Isn’t it right to point out a wrong, immaterial of who the wrong-doer is? Also, isn’t it right to take a stand against anything wrong and wrong not to take a stand?
Firstly, How did Cleartrip allow an individual blog/comment to be published on their official blog? This is just the authors comment, very unintelligent, Cleartrip has a long way!!
Secondly, Mr. author, you didnt get it right, as most have commented, Google, isnt dictating terms…where did you read Google is asking/telling the Chinese goverment??..they are just doing what they want to do and what should be done! Plain and simple.
It is a paid article?? Like how the indian news channels are, these days!! Pay them and they will create the news!!
@Hrush Let’s take the point a little further as has been suggested.
So you’re the CEO of a private organisation called, coincidentally, Amnesty International. You work for human rights and you call out the Chinese government for its well-documented abuse of the standards you have. They think they’re doing no wrong, but you think they are.
Do you have the right to do tell their government to stop doing whatever they are that you have an objection to? After all, Amnesty is a corporation and China is a government.
If yes, why? If no, why not?
If you weren’t at Amnesty but someone else was, would you call them out for doing something wrong?
Now let’s assume Amnesty is a for-profit organisation instead of a non-profit. Would that make any difference? Can ethical standards only be had by non-profits?
Now let’s take a second case. You are Nike. You have a well-documented policy against child labour.
You start getting stuff outsourced but then you learn that the government of a particular province somewhere where your outsourcer’s factories run – Pakistan, India, China, wherever now has a policy that says its okay to use Child Labour.
At this point you tell your vendors and Ministry of Industry representatives that you will pull your business from there if they don’t immediately stop child labour, at least in your factories.
Do you have a right to do so? Or not?
If Nike did so, would you call them out for daring to speak to a government this way?
A third case. A Cleartrip employee in the Middle East or Malaysia is with his / her significant other and they make out in a closed hotel room even though they’re not married to each other.
For this, they’re arrested and sentenced to 100 lashes and 20 years in prison each which is okay by their law. But not by your moral standards.
Would you speak out against it?
Are these situations any different from the Google case you have an objection to?
Regards
Mahesh
@Mahesh
If there was just 1 cleartrip employee in the hotel room (Hrush) and 1 blow up doll (of Steve Jobs) – caught making out, would you speak out against it?
My guess is yes. For sake of the poor doll, you would.
Most of us know that Cleartrip or their representatives hate Google for some of the obvious reasons that a few would know. And in this case Hrush, you have simply lost your mind. Prejudice is something that one should always be wary of. This blog post is a simple case of bias.
Sometimes punishment is required to instill a sense of responsibility. I am going to stop purchasing tickets from Cleartrip for another month from now. And I am going to advocate the same to my friends. I don’t think Cleartrip would be affected by this. But then, I will do it anyway.
And in my personal opinion, constructive criticism should always be welcomed. The world would have been a better place if the ammunition factories in Germany had told no to Hitler.
whether its a google or a microsoft at no point in time should they think that they are greater in strength than any government .. i support the stand that cleartrip takes. and unfortunately some people will just add fuel to the fire with out taking responsibility for their words. Living a comfortable life in a democratic country such as India, how would one happen to know why or how any other government works .. infact if ppl feel so strongly for China and the well being of chinese they should probably take up chinese citizenship. Companies like Google will only crib because they see that gap in the potential revenue they could be making if they could gain major presence in china….
I can’t but agree with the author. It is not the business of a private company to dictate terms, howsoever undemocratic the country may look. It is the business of its leaders to run the show the way they like it, even if it is autocratic as long as the people accept it or forced to accept it.
I’m stunned that a single person is venting his personal views under the umbrella of a million dollar brand like Cleartrip. All the best guys, for what I see as your evolved form of masochism.
Mr. Hrush makes a monster out of Google, a sort of a dictator who wants to foist unreasonable standards of its evil morality on a ‘hapless’ China.
I just have one simple question to ask Mr. Hrush. How on earth is Google getting so much of support from the locals in China? Why this support? The Google offices in China have been flooded with flowers and this is not for ‘Gandhigiri’ to get a recalcitrant private enterprise back to its senses.
Google is not dictating ridiculous changes to the domestic policies of a sovereign country. The Chinese understand this and that’s why they are supporting Google (and please don’t mistake the communist party for China).
When Google entered China, it did not anticipate that the state will condone sophisticated (& evil) attacks on its infrastructure. Now that these things are happening, Google has taken a stand and the company should be lauded for showing some spine.
Google’s market share in China grew from 12% to 36% in the last four years. Also, Google is leaving the most populous internet region of the world and not the FATA region. How many companies have the spine to leave opportunities for morals?
Ff you cannot give credit to the organization at this juncture then at least don’t criticize it ridiculously.
BTW, Cleartrip rocks. However, your comments and tweets suck!
hrush – do u like ricky martin too?
Hey Sachin … where is ur spine .. makes you look like your the one whoz been thinking about ricky
.. get a life ..
Hi Hrush you seem to have read this issue in a different context. Like most others have pointed out Google is based on freedom of expression and is not demanding anything from the Chinese Governament. They have been in China and tried to work inspite of the censorship. Also your examples are ilogical and weaken your argument. Please do your research and proof read your post before putting it on the web. Also just based on what happened to Google it is not prudent to take a decision on doing business there or not. Regards
"Any privately held company…"
Blammo! Google went public in 2004!
Hrush, we say – forgive them (your blog detractors), for they not know what they do. Pray, continue to write and enliven the blogscape with your take on popular issues and let’s hope the sane ones can join and augment the quality of debate rather than disparage it/you.
Encore..
I don’t know if you are familiar with it, but this sounds like the logic of the people here in the USA from the Southern States who are still upset about the Civil War we fought back in the 1860′s. They love to say, over and over, and they really believe it, that the war was not about slavery, but rather about States rights. We have this long running conversation in our democracy about the balance between the 50 states laws and the federal government laws. It’s a good thing that produces a lot of good workable social structure, and it is very true that states should have a level of say in how things run there and not have everything be decided at the federal level.
And it is absolutely true that our Civil War was over state’s rights…but the big glaring point they forget to mention is that they were seeking to have the right as states to enslave human beings.
Whenever you talk about justice, you have to consider who has power and who doesn’t have power, and this must enter your thinking, because 100% of the time, the issue is that those with power are oppressing those without power. The powerless have no ability to oppress, or be unjust, toward the powerful.
There will always be a few people who will bravely go up against those with power in order to protect those they are oppressing.
So, typically, large corporations have more power than individuals, and in many cases by seducing governments, they can gain power over whole societies. But here is a case, where a large corporation is doing the complete opposite of what they usually do. They are saying, we could just take the money and join in oppressing the powerless, but instead we choose not to and seek to influence the government to also not oppress.
This is amazing.
And there is no religion or ethic or moral code in the history of humanity that would say, you cannot speak out against the unjust actions of a powerful entity when you are of a certain category. This category of entity can speak out, but this other category cannot. This idea that you have put forth, that as an absolute, no corporation can seek to tell a government what to do does have merit in many cases – and most especially when the corporation is seeking it’s own benefit at the expense of the less powerful individuals. But when the entity called government is oppressing individuals, justice cries out in the ether against it and seeks a viable human entity to incarnate it’s cry through real actions and words. Justice seeks to be heard and does not care what entity allows it to be possessed and translated into the real world. If an individual writer, singer or a corporation becomes the voice of justice against oppression, every human ethical code that ever existed feels satisfied.
You have created an argument that only applies in the case when the government is the source of justice, protecting the people. In this ideal expression of government no corporation should have a say, because the corporation is probably seeking it’s benefit over the people’s. And that is a good view to have of government – government should be run by the people, to protect and benefit the people. Unfortunately, in China’s case, it is the government that is the source of oppression, and therefore, any voice against it is good.
The 50 states in the USA should be a beacon of local knowledge and laws which are organically created locally to better the life of the people, but when the states seek to enslave humans, the issue of "state rights" disappears, because no one would say, States, or any other entity, have the "right" to oppress people.
The more simple route to clarify your thinking is this – do you think the Chinese government has the right to control the internet to the detriment of the people? Yes or no? And if no, then why would you care who it is that takes the brave and selfless stand to seek that end? You are arguing for "the State of China’s rights" to be sovereign, up against all the other governments or other entities. And yes, that is true when China stands as a protector to her people up against all those other entities, but not when it is the source of injustice. There are no absolutes in these situations, rather, discovering who has power and how that power is being used is the path toward clarity.