Microsoft accused of pulling the plug; Cisco of making the plug

Microsoft is rapidly expanding its own resources in China, including its own localized search engine. Today, that company came under fire for taking down a blog posted through its regional MSN service there, which included material reportedly critical of the Chinese government. Earlier this afternoon, Reuters reported,

Last Friday, during a meeting of the World Economics Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Google CEO Eric Schmidt was asked whether his company's China policy was in sync with his company's oft-repeated credo, "Don't be evil." An International Herald Tribune reporter on the scene recorded Schmidt's response as, "We even made an 'evil scale,' and decided it was more evil not to go in than to go in." Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, also in attendance, reportedly responded by uttering into his microphone, "That's, do less evil." This set Schmidt off, who responded in turn, "I don't want to get caught up in semantics."

Microsoft is also currently taking part in a European Government Leaders Forum, sponsored by the company, but not in the Human Rights Caucus. In a statement released late this afternoon, a Microsoft spokesperson told TG Daily, "We informed the Human Rights caucus that we would not be able to provide them with an expert witness this Wednesday. But this is an important issue for the industry and for citizens internationally. We do plan to continue to engage in discussions with government leaders on issues of great importance, and we are planning to participate in upcoming congressional hearings on this topic on the 15th."

Microsoft's statement could be interpreted to mean it's perfectly willing to speak with Congress on the issue of doing business with China, but not necessarily in the same venue with some of its staunchest critics.

Cisco Systems was accused last year of selling networking equipment to the Chinese government, reportedly for the purposes of enabling it to censor its own citizens' Internet access. Cisco has vehemently denied that allegation. In a statement last August, the company said, "Cisco Systems does not participate in the censorship of information by governments." The statement added, however, "Cisco does sell networking equipment to law enforcement agencies around the world, including in China, in compliance with U.S. Department of Commerce regulations. Our products offer benefits through the networking of computing devices that aid in the effectiveness and timeliness of law enforcement."

In a statement posted last Friday to Cisco's corporate blog, spokesman John Earnhardt sided with Google on that company's China policy. "Agree or disagree with China's censorship policies," wrote Earnhardt, "some internet in China is definitely better than no internet. They are a sovereign nation and while I may disagree with them keeping information from their citizens, that is their right under their own laws. We cannot place our U.S. or French or German or British sensibilities or values on them."

For Cong. Ryan's part, his spokesman told us, he would like to see American companies band together in support of globally-accepted human rights principles, including freedom of speech and open communication. They could band together, he argued, if they're unwilling to take such a stand on their own accord. Wal-Mart, he agreed, has been monumentally successful in single-handedly changing the way business is done in China - and the way China is viewed by the US. Why then, he argued, would these four major American corporations want to take a back seat to Wal-Mart?

It's worth noting, however, that since tomorrow's Caucus meeting focuses on Internet policy, Wal-Mart was not invited.

"Whether succumbing to demands from Chinese officials or anticipating government concerns," Amnesty International secretary-general Irene Khan told the same World Economic Forum last week, "companies that impose restrictions that infringe on human rights are being extremely short-sighted. The agreements the industry enters into with the Chinese government, whether tacit or written, go against the IT industry's claim that it promotes the right to freedom of information of all people, at all times, everywhere."