Argument: It results in Western companies getting kicked out of the countries, damaging significant Western businesses

Western businesses have been seeking entry into external markets, some of which could well be classified as oppressive. These firms have invested significant time, money, and manpower into building up their businesses. By enforcing this policy they will face huge challenges in growth, and even maintaining their place in these countries at all. Internet service providers and other technology firms in particular will suffer. Google and Yahoo have claimed that their efforts in these countries, much like those of Western governments, have helped soften regimes, much more than not engaging at all at least. [1] As Western companies face more and more competition in international markets they, and the Western economies of which they are a part, cannot afford to undermine themselves for the sake of making a political statement, one that would ultimately not necessarily serve to further the cause of freedom anyway.

[1] Gunther, Marc, ‘Tech execs get grilled over China business’, Fortune, 16 February 2006, http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/15/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes

Candidate 1: "As with all messages this will not make a “clear and emphatic statement about free speech” rather it will be a message that is muddied by hypocrisy. Autocratic ‘repressive’ regimes are not the only states to enable some form of censorship on the internet. Britain has a blacklist that is not even run by the government but left to a charity called the Internet Watch Foundation, [1] Iceland is considering banning internet pornography, [2] and western European countries have bans on holocaust denial which apply online as well as offline. [3] The message is then anything but clear. States on the receiving end of such action will rightly accuse their antagonists of the hypocrisy of wanting to control their own internet while not allowing other that they deem to be ‘less free’ to do the same. As a result the statement is if anything one of aggression that may cause retrenchment or even a dangerous reaction.

[1] Davies, C.J., ‘The hidden censors of the internet’, WIRED, 20 May 2009, http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/06/features/the-hidden-censors-of-the-internet/viewall

[2] Associated Press, ‘Iceland seeks internet pornography ban’, guardian.co.uk, 25 February 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/25/iceland-seeks-internet-pornography-ban

[3] See the Debatabase debate ‘ This House would block access to websites that deny the holocaust ’"
Candidate 2: "There is only so much that governments can do to oppress their people. Even if this policy did embolden repressive states to ramp up their other means of control, the genie of the internet would be out of the bottle. Without it, dissident groups would find it impossible to ever successfully organize and rebel. It is not a trade-off of one form of oppression for another, but is rather a recognition that Western countries must accept that oppressive regimes will take nasty decisions in reprisal in the short term, while being unable to maintain their firm grip on the public once it is armed with the information and organizational power the internet provides."
Candidate 3: "Internet censorship is a problem, but it is hardly the biggest one facing people in these countries. Internet access is often limited to only the more affluent segments of most poor countries, and it is thus not the best mode of building grass roots movement for reform. This means it is often not even the best platform for dissent, it is notable that the ‘twitter revolution’ may have had some of the organisation through the internet but it was action on the ground through protests that overthrew Ben Ali. [1] At best Western intervention in this case would simply prompt oppressive regimes to utilize more conventional, often more violent methods of quelling dissent.

[1] Ash, Timothy Garton, ‘Tunisia’s revolution isn’t a product of Twitter or WikiLeaks. But they do help’, The Guardian, 19 January 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/19/tunisia-revolution-twitter-facebook"
Candidate 4: "Appeasement does not work to increase internet freedom. This has been shown time and time again with China. China has slowly been becoming more and more accepted into the international system; it gained Security Council membership in 1971, joined the WTO in 2000, and held the Olympics in 2008 to celebrate its new role on the world stage. Yet this has not meant they have relaxed internet censorship, far from it, it simply becomes more refined and difficult to detect. [1] Even China’s version of twitter is very fast at censoring posts, despite there being 70,000 messages per minute, almost a third of deletions are completed within 30 minutes. [2] Engagement simply shows that there is no cost to repressive regimes if they continue as they have been. It is therefore enabling them to continue their repression.

[1] Roberts, Eric, ‘Where Censorship in China is Headed’, International Trends concerning Freedom of Information on the Electronic Commons, 2008, http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~eroberts/cs181/projects/international-freedom-of-info/china.html

[2] Mozur, Paul, ‘Just How Fast Are China’s Internet Censors? Very.’ China Realtime Report, 8 March 2013, http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/03/08/just-how-fast-are-chinas-internet-censors-very-a-new-study-finds/"
Candidate 5: "Western companies must be governed by codes of ethics. These should not merely stop at the border of their home state. If they are to be ethical actors they must uphold the freedoms they claim to value. If this means not being able to profit massively in markets so be it. Western governments should have little sympathy for firms profiting from and aiding in the oppression of peoples."
Candidate 6: "Any country’s first duty is to its own citizens, and this includes countries that promote human rights and freedom abroad. It is difficult to see why pronouncements by a country should morally oblige it to act in a particular way. Rhetoric and high minded pronouncements are the bread and butter of politics, as is not living up to that rhetoric. These countries may act in response to the desire of their own people to act but this is then done not out of a duty to those in other country but to the electorate of their own."

Western companies must be governed by codes of ethics. These should not merely stop at the border of their home state. If they are to be ethical actors they must uphold the freedoms they claim to value. If this means not being able to profit massively in markets so be it. Western governments should have little sympathy for firms profiting from and aiding in the oppression of peoples.
