More4 (UK) screened a doc on TV the other night entitled “Tank Man”, covering the protestor who stood in front of a line of tanks at Tiannemen Square in 1989. (A homepage for the film can be found at PBS’s Frontline). The most amazing segment (for me, anyway) was when a group of Beijing university students (from one of the capital’s universities that were heavily involved in the protests at the time) were shown the infamous photo of the man against the machines of tyrrany. Not one of the students knew what it represented. China’s mastery over history appears to be complete, bringing George Orwell’s classic statement to life: “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” (Of course, China’s by no means unique; western democracies have learnt how to keep things quiet, too, albeit a bit differently).

China’s mastery over history is being carried out with the help of western IT firms such as Microsoft, Yahoo and Google (amongst others). Yahoo, for example, has helped in the arrest of at least one Chinese dissident, Microsoft has helped censor Chinese blogs, and Google’s Chinese search engine engages in prolific censoring of the internet for Chinese users.

Tank Man covered this segment fairly well with some excellent film footage from the joint Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations and the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific hearing entitled, “The Internet in China: A Tool for Freedom or Suppression?” (watch from about 2hr 48min) where Yahoo, Cisco, Microsoft and Google receive a grilling over their collusion with the Chinese authorities in helping them censor the internet with their software and hardware. A very brief edited transcript of Rep. Tom Lantos’ exchange with the execs can be found here. I particularly enjoyed this exchange:

Microsoft: We comply with legally binding orders whether it’s here in the U.S. or China.

Lantos: Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system…Do you think that IBM during that period had something to be ashamed of?

Microsoft: I can’t speak to that. I’m not familiar in detail with IBM’s activities in that period.

I also really liked this statement from Congressman Christopher Smith. Direct and to the point:

When Yahoo was asked to explain its actions, Yahoo said that it must adhere to local laws in all countries where it operates. But my response to that is: if the secret police a half century ago asked where Anne Frank was hiding, would the correct answer be to hand over the information in order to comply with local laws? These are not victimless crimes. We must stand with the oppressed, not the oppressors.

Well said, that man.

It’s amazing how easily human rights abuses fall to the way side in name of profit. Being from South Africa, I don’t find it particularly surprising, just as John Harrington at Alternet wasn’t. He also drew the connection between how IT businesses now help China and how “In the early 1970s, global corporations, including about 350 U.S.-based transnational companies, were pouring millions of dollars into racist, white-minority-ruled South Africa to earn lots of money”. The reason why was simple:

There was cheap, controlled and abundant black African labor, cheap natural resources, a western banking system, an industrial economy exporting products to Europe and the West and a police and military state elected in a whites-only “democracy” to keep the trains running on time.

Western corporate involvement during apartheid-era South Africa was again brought to light when activists tried to sue apartheid-era international corporations, including “Citigroup, General Electric, IBM, General Motors, Shell Oil, ExxonMobil, Barclays Bank, Ford Motor Company, Daimler-Chrysler, Caltex Petroleum, Deutsche Bank and British Petroleum”. Ruling against the activists, the judge stated:

In a world where many countries may fall considerably short of ideal economic, political and social conditions, this court must be extremely cautious in permitting suits here based upon a corporation’s doing business in countries with less than stellar human rights records.

Can’t put it more plainly than that. I wonder what would’ve happened if a judge had ruled that against corporations helping Nazi Germany kill Jews?