“Ethical Dilemma”

Posted on by
Reply

Walmart is getting blowback from the citizens and government personnel of the People’s Republic of China in response to the company’s apparent decision to stop selling products—in accordance with US law—sourced from or with components sourced from the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of the PRC, where the men of the PRC government are practicing genocide and using the so-far survivors for slave labor.

In her Wall Street Journal article on the matter and the blowback other US companies also are getting for following US law, Liza Lin had this remark, which illustrates the far-too-wide misunderstanding of the situation that too many journalists have.

The northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang, home to millions of mostly Muslim minorities, has become a geopolitical flashpoint and an ethical dilemma for US multinationals doing business in China.

There’s no ethical dilemma here. US companies, multinational or other, have no ethical business—no moral ability—to do business within a nation that practices genocide or to do business with businesses that are domiciled in nations that practice genocide.

Full stop.

Walmart, and those other companies, would do well to withdraw altogether from the PRC, not just from the Region. Aside from the moral aspect, there are plenty of markets around the world other than those in genocidal countries.

Disingenuosity in Advertising

Posted on by
Reply

Advertisers think they need to be careful this winter. Maybe they do.

Advertisers are treading carefully when it comes to peddling their products and services during February’s Beijing Winter Olympics….

And

Some brands are considering not including any references to the host city in their Olympic marketing efforts, according to advertising and marketing executives. Others plan to run non-Olympic-themed ads during the Games.

Never mind the disingenuousness of advertising on a network during that network’s Winter Olympics coverage, but carefully not mentioning the host city’s name. The who and the where remain obvious. And the who and the where remain the seat of a government that practices genocide and threatens invasion and conquering of other nations.

Nor is it all that hard. There’s no fine line to walk, there’s no need to tread carefully.

The advertisers don’t need to advertise at all on any network during that network’s coverage of this season’s Winter Olympics; let the networks carry the games ad-free. Advertisers can advertise elsewhere during the hours of games coverage to their hearts’ content, just stay true to their putative intent of remaining games-free during with those ads.

And this:

Brands are “concerned how their actions could be interpreted by the Chinese government,” and history has shown that China could take action against them if they speak out[.]

Advertisers don’t need to be cowardly, either. As soon as advertisers surrender themselves to threats of PRC government action, they become prisoners of that government. Advertisers that are American companies should act like Americans, not supplicants of the PRC’s government men.

Let the rest of us ignore the games. We’ll be watching who supports the People’s Republic of China and its atrocities.

Ultimatums

Posted on by
Reply

Russian President Vladimir Putin has them, so far centered on his buildup opposite Russia’s border with Ukraine.

“Further movement of NATO eastward is unacceptable,” Mr Putin told a press conference on Thursday.

This is the Kaiser presuming to order Poincaré/Viviani and Asquith not to respond to his buildup opposite the French border.

And this:

Mr Putin warned that Russia’s actions would depend not only “on the course of the negotiations, but on the unconditional provision of Russia’s security, today and in the future,” he said.

Like he’s honoring Ukraine’s security, as he’s already committed to do via his agreements under the Budapest Memoranda? He’s in no position to complain, at least in no moral position.

The Russian Anschluss:

[Putin insists] the future of the breakaway eastern region, called the Donbas, should be determined by residents there and he described the Kremlin’s role as being “mediators in creating the best conditions for determining the future of the people who live there.”
More than a million residents of the Donbas region have Russian passports, according to senior Russian officials.

The question is whether Biden-Harris, Macron, Johnson, and Scholz will have the moral and political courage that even those two sets of feckless predecessors had. In making their decisions to run and hide or to stop Putin and force him back out of Ukraine (and Georgia), these worthies need to consider that the farther Putin expands his borders, the farther he’ll demand the West retreat, for the unconditional provision of Russia’s security, today and in the future.

Update: Putin is withdrawing some 10,000 soldiers of the 175,000 that he’s mobilized on the Russian border with Ukraine. There are some reasons for this. One is that he’s making a show of this to cover the fact that he’s simply rotating troops in and out of the field to keep them fresh.

Another is that he’s giving up something small in the expectation of–and added pressure to–get something major for his going first with this “concession.”

Another is that Biden-Harris already has surrendered something, and he’s making a token gesture preparatory to forcing a major surrender regarding Ukraine, having thus built  momentum in Biden-Harris toward yielding and gotten him deeper into that mindset.

Updated Update: Other Russian troop movements include these:

Satellite photos revealed that Russia this month has moved infantry vehicles, tanks, artillery, and more into Crimea, according to reports. Additionally, a military unit has arrived near a Russian town that is situated nine miles from the border with Ukraine.

Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

This time, by Intel’s Chairman Omar Ishrak and CEO Pat Gelsinger. This management team, a short time ago, sent out a letter to Intel suppliers asking them to avoid sourcing from the [People’s Republic of China’s] region of Xinjiang, where the Chinese government has conducted a campaign of forcible assimilation against religious minorities.

Intel called on its business partners to steer clear of the remote northwestern region of China, noting that “multiple governments have imposed restrictions on products sourced from the Xinjiang region. Therefore, Intel is required to ensure our supply chain does not use any labor or source goods or services from the Xinjiang region.”

After a hue and cry on PRC social media, though, Ishrak and Gelsinger cringed and ducked under their separate desks, and had the company issue a carefully unsigned corporate statement expressing “Intel’s” regret over having offended the PRC.

…its letter was written only to comply with US law and didn’t represent Intel’s stance on Xinjiang.

Please don’t hurt us, please. We didn’t mean it. And this plea:

We deeply apologize for the confusion caused to our respected Chinese customers, partners, and the public[.]

There’s this, too, illustrating the artificial nature of the conundrum:

Multinational companies have been caught in the middle as Western governments have pressured companies to disentangle their supply chains from Xinjiang.

No, they’re not caught in any middle. They just need to find the moral courage to shift their supply sources and their markets out of the PRC. They have the economic wherewithal, even if the transition processes will be near-term expensive. An earlier First Lady identified the position to take: “Just say no.” Even that infamous shoe-maker, Nike, has the right words, if not the integrity to honor them: “Just do it.”

Never mind that it’s PRC President Xi Jinping and his Chinese Communist Party cronies who should be apologizing for their ongoing atrocities against Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

This is disgusting cowardice, and it should be unacceptable for American company managers to put lucre from the PRC above morality.

This Isn’t Ignorance

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden-Harris administration wants our oil companies to produce more because energy prices are too damn high. Never mind that it’s Biden-Harris policies that have crippled American oil and natural gas production and driven those prices so much higher.

The Biden administration says that oil companies face no government constraints on drilling more in the short run, even as it presses the companies to shift long term to cleaner forms of energy in response to climate change.

Which is a complete lie.  Then we get this from Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, via her spokesman:

It’s important for the American oil-and-gas industry to address near-term energy demands while also recognizing that they need to begin transitioning their companies.

How, exactly? The Biden-Harris administration has closed off drilling on Federal lands, it has shut down one major pipeline, and it’s threatening to close off two more.

Oh, wait. There’s this from Granholm, just a few months after she laughed uproariously at a question concerning her plan for boosting our energy production:

Please take advantage of the leases that you have, hire workers, get your rig count up[.]

Leaving aside those lease cutoffs she and her boss, Biden-Harris, have inflicted. That’s not a short-term process; those monies can only be committed for the mid- to long-term. Drilling wells on private land, just like they would have done on the closed-off Federal lands, takes time, equipment, money—and pipelines. And there’s high likelihood that “next year,” Biden-Harris and Granholm will punish those producers for producing so much climate “poison.”

Berating, pressuring, our oil and natural gas producers to produce more after having spent the year berating, pressuring them to cut production, and hamstringing them to ensure they produce less isn’t borne of Biden-Harris or Granholm ignorance.

This is outright dishonesty by those Know Betters in the Federal government.