Censorship in China
- Overview
- Companies Implicated
in Abuses
- Business standards in China
- Public pressure increases
- Shareholder activism
- Recent developments
- Take action
- Additional resources
Business Standards in China
Human rights obligations apply to all states equally. Yet there is a tendency in the international business community to deal with China using a unique set of standards. China has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which means it intends to be bound by the spirit of the Covenant pending ratification. Article 19 of the ICCPR clearly states that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference; that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, and that this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. Article 17 of the ICCPR states that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy... or correspondence".
The ICCPR does place certain reasonable restrictions on the exercise of these fundamental rights, for instance in the case of inciteful hate speech. However the legitimate grounds recognized for such limitations, including protection of the rights and reputations of others, national security, public order, or public health or morals – cannot be read as restricting discussions about democracy and religious and political freedoms. Indeed, the Covenant specifies that any limitations on freedom of expression and information must be strictly proportionate to the aim sought and limited to those "necessary in a democratic society". The restrictions on freedom of expression and information which Microsoft and Yahoo! have facilitated in China go way beyond what is reasonable based on international standards.
Article 35 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China seeks to ensure that citizens enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration. Furthermore, companies have a responsibility to respect human rights over local laws where these pose a threat to fundamental human rights. But, even where local law does not exist to afford such protection or where the law is inconsistent with human rights, companies have a responsibility to respect human rights over local laws, especially where they pose a threat to fundamental human rights. Article 12 further states: "Transnational corporations and other business enterprises shall respect [human] rights and contribute to their realization, in particular the right to... privacy, education, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion and freedom of opinion and expression, and shall refrain from actions which obstruct or impede the realization of those rights."
Amnesty International sent letters to Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo! (YHOO) regarding these issues (see Additional Resources). We urged both companies to conduct their business in China, as elsewhere, in a manner that respects human rights, abides by international human rights standards and avoids complicity in human rights violations.
We received a response from Yahoo! (YHOO) which reads, in part:
"The choice in China or other countries is not whether to comply with law enforcement demands for information. Rather, the choice is whether or not to remain in a country. We balance the requirement to comply with laws that are not necessarily consistent with our own values against our strong belief that active involvement in China contributes to the continued modernization of the country as well as a benefit to Chinese citizens through the advancement of communications, commerce and access to information."
Microsoft and Google (GOOG) echoed a similar sentiment in front of an international audience at the Internet Governance Forum in November 2006. In fact, Yahoo! (YHOO) and other IT companies operating in China have far more than the two choices offered above, several of which were laid out explicitly in our letter to them, and in subsequent testimony before the Human Rights Caucus of the US Congress on February 1, 2006. So far we have no evidence to suggest that any of these companies have made the most basic attempts to ensure that they were operating according to international standards.
