The idea that corporate investment and trade with dictatorships contributes to democratization, as stated by Darcy Davidsmeyer, state director, Illinois Coalition to Support U.S. China Commercial Relations (Voice, July 21) should be challenged.
On the face of it, investment in another country enriches tyrannies that suppress democratic impulses. The occupation of Tibet, belligerence toward Taiwan, not to mention nuclear threats toward the U.S., bolster the argument of those of us who reject the premise that the mere presence of U.S. corporations supports the entrepreneurial sectors of Chinese society, which Davidsmeyer says have driven economic freedom, respect for the individual, adherence to the rule of law and fair business dealings.
The restrictions on freedom of speech, of assembly and of religion, and the current imprisonment of those who seek to act on them, raise grave doubts that U.S. corporations’ presence has helped democracy.
Davidsmeyer’s argument that disinvestment leaves few levers for changes, however, makes a good point. The crucial question is: Does the example and practice of a corporation in fact promote human rights or strengthen oppression?
Those concerned about investments promoting apartheid in South Africa developed a code of conduct known as the Sullivan Principles after a Philadelphia minister who developed and advocated them. A similar code needs to be developed today among corporate leaders, their stockholders and consumers who want their corporate presence to aid transitions to democracy and the promotion of human rights.
