Congress v. Google

It seems pretty popular to blast Google for entering into the Chinese market with a customized, censored search product. Hell, congressmen do it, bloggers do it, and the general feeling is pretty negative (and dare we say it — anti-China). I have to ask — WTF with statements like, “Your abhorrent actions in China are a disgrace,” (Rep. Tom Lantos). But more on the Tom-cat later.

Google is a company. Not a not-for-profit, not a humanitarian foundation, and certainly not an activist group. Why are we trying to hold Google to this higher standard (and Yahoo!, Microsoft, Cisco)? People, these are companies. They are there to turn a buck. We taught them that (see: capitalism), and boy, they are good at it. Why are we trying to slay the beast we bore? C’mon.

Is it a case of “do as we say, not as we do?” Isn’t fighting for humanitarianism the government’s job if the government wants to keep freedom on the march? What does the Congressional Human Rights Caucus actually do than point fingers at US companies?

Let us not forget that the same companies, in many conversations, are referred to as “The Man”. Yes, the kind keeping us down. When did they hold the torch of Human-Rights-For-All? And why them? Do you honestly want Microsoft fighting that fight? That keeps me up at night.

Not to say that I’m a great big slobbering fan of activist imprisonment, religious persecution, and the killing of dissidents. Please, let’s not go there. But is the government’s criticism of Google more about grandstanding and blaming “The Other Man” than about fixing the Chinese human rights issues?

Politicians are often saying capitalism is the beginning of, or the same as, freedom. Marching onward, even, lol. Let’s take a look at Google’s fundamental commitments re: China as they said in their testimony:

(a) satisfy the interests of users
(b) expand access to information
(c) be responsive to local conditions

(a) and (b) == make money. (c) == do it with respect to the best way to make money in the place we are. Shouldn’t our government be proud that Google has been able to find a clever way to make some cash in China? Isn’t the economic freedom of capitalism supposed to be one of our greatest exports?

And (c). What about it? That’s respect for other cultures and the way they live their lives. We don’t set up shop in France and make it so the employees can’t eat cheese and drink wine. Google doesn’t go into China to change China’s laws and culture. They go in to make a buck. And working within the space of Chinese law makes it easier to make that buck because, let’s face it, it’s harder to make money from inside a Chinese prison.

Seems like Freedom’s on the march pretty well. And it walks on dollars.

Finally, let’s take a peek at Rep. Lantos. Co-Chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and ranking democratic member of the House International Relations Committee. How does he stack up in terms of censorship and, well, obfuscating the truth he so dearly holds important?

Check out CNET. Yes, I was as surprised as you to find something useful on CNET. Looks like Lantos and his buddy Rep. Chris Smith (who chairs the subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations) don’t stack up too well.

Voting for a flag-burning amendment that limits your right to protest, restriction on election-related speech, and the Patriot Act — now that just doesn’t sound like they care about my rights and freedoms. Oh, and Smith likes the proposal to restrict violent video game sales to minors. Yay freedom.

Want more light on Lantos? How about we wind back the clock a little bit? Maybe readers don’t remember the first Gulf War, but Tom Lantos played a pretty pivotal role in getting us there, too. Now, I’m not making a pro/anti-war argument here, but let’s relate it to censorship and human rights a bit.

October 10, 1990, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus heard testimony from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl who claimed to have witnessed Iraqi soldiers pulling babies from hospital incubators and leaving them to die on the floor. All told, 312 infants were allegedly slaughtered by Iraqi soldiers. Lantos helped coordinate the effort and soaked it all up for the world to see.

Turns out that the girl was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States and had fabricated the entire story in collaboration with a powerful capitol hill PR firm, Hill & Knowlton. No one knows how much Lantos knew about this.

Funnily enough, Lantos’ Human Rights Foundation was housed, rent-free, in the Hill & Knowlton offices and the H&K switchboard routed calls to the Foundation’s executive director.

Being so tightly coupled with H&K, is Lantos in a situation of potential conflict of interest, especially with regard to human rights? H&K has had as clients, Kuwait, Indonesia, Turkey, and China, all countries with, ahem, questionable human rights policies.

Anyways. For me, this is clearly a moment of “git off yer high horse”. Lantos shouldn’t be pointing fingers when he’s mired in conflict of interest with H&K and his own past coverups and censorship. But the bigger picture is: should we make Google and other internet companies bear the torch of freedom and human rights? I’m all for Google doing good, and all US companies making us proud, but isn’t it part of the job of the government to lead the way?

Pertinent links: