In a timely follow up to my post yesterday on whether companies need a foreign policy, Google has effectively delivered an ultimatum to China.

The ultimatum essentially says "let us provide uncensored Google in China or we will shut Google.cn". Naturally, no one expects China to accede to Google's wishes.

The background an a good analysis are provided by Imagethief here.

Imagethief does not mention the meeting between Internet business leaders and Hillary Clinton last week, and I cannot help but feel that the timing of this announcement is linked to that meeting even if there are broader events leading up to this. Eric Schmidt is simply too close to the Obama administration to do this on the fly. Certainly to China it will look like it is, and if there is one thing that was acknowledged in that meeting it is that any stand US companies take in relation to human rights in China will be viewed by China as a proxy move by the US.

While Imagethief notes and the Wall Street Journal implies that Google's eventual withdrawal from China on human rights grounds makes it really difficult for Microsoft to remain, I would be very surprised if Microsoft, the State Department and others did not already know of the move before Google dropped today's bombshell.

• 5 Comments

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a dinner last week for the tech industry's key leaders. It looks to me like the consolidation of a trend.

I attended a talk a few years back and I am struggling to recall where it was. It was either in Boston or in Washington. Anyway the talk was given by a recently retired general counsel of a mahor corporation - perhaps IBM, perhaps GM. The main argument of the talk was that corporations need a foreign policy. I thought the idea was instantly exciting and terrifying.

Exciting because back then I had recently written a paper on "Legitimacy risks and peacebuilding opportunities for businesses in post-conflict Iraq". The fact is that businesses have presence, relationships and power and they will have an impact on communities and even nations whether they have a policy or not.
 

Terrifying because, as that paper had tried to make clear, legitimacy was key, and in the Iraq situation the absence of inclusiveness and accountability pretty much assured that the reconstruction effort would lack local goodwill. Think about how the reconstruction contracts were allocated, the absence of community involvement in allocation, the lack contract winners of Iraqi origin, then the failure of firms that undertook the work to do so from the outset with a solid local outreach and inclusion approach.

There are plenty of extractive industry firms with a substantial involvement in foreign affairs, too often with dubious and opaque relationships supporting regimes run by corrupt elites.

It is the global technology firm - particularly though not exclusively the internet-based firms - that is new to the art of running aground on foreign policy issues in most recent years. So I was very interested to hear about a small private dinner hosted by Hilary Clinton last week with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Twitter Co-Founder Jack Dorsey, Microsoft Chief Research and Strategy Officer Craig Mundie. The subject under discussion: how technology can be used to meet the nation’s foreign diplomacy goals.

It is a topic I touched on here during the first major upheavals in Iran when twitter played such a role: Iran, business models and the right to tweet speech. The basic argument of that post - that access to twitter is crucial to freedom of speech - has been echoed in a State Departent blog post which said the agency wanted to use twitter in a contest as a:

"worldwide platform in which people can discuss the meaning of democracy and exchange ideas from diverse perspectives."

My thoughts/questions are these:

1/ Is corporate foreign policy simply an alternate name for existing corporate responsibility issues with a global hue, like climate change or, in the internet company case privacy issues? Or is it - and I believe it is - something more, where corproations are taking on a responsibility to consider their impact on human rights within their sphere of activity in a more accountable, thus perhaps quasi-public way?

2/ how do we assure legitimacy? How can we bring the right kind of transparency and inclusivity to corporate statecraft to ensure that it is just?

3/ global corporations are based in dozens of countries. Is there a question of to which foreign policy it needs to align its own?

Do you have any views?

• 1 Comment

The two year plan retains the priority of economic rights - the right to subsistence and development - above political and social rights.

Nevertheless, the National Human Rights Action Plan of China (2009-10) was welcomed by international human rights groups.

• 0 Comments