On the 31st anniversary of June 4 this year, we held various commemorative online events via the platform that is the most popular worldwide: Zoom. We were not unaware of Zoom’s security risks, but at least until now, Zoom is one of the few video platforms which Chinese citizens can register at and log on to freely. In order to let more people in China go online to participate in the events, we were bound to count on Zoom.

What happened afterwards has been covered by the media: Our web conference on June 4 was interrupted twice. Zoom admitted that it was not a hacker attack, but they terminated the meeting at its discretion upon the request of the Chinese government, which claimed that among the participants of the online meeting, there were accounts from China.

Zoom’s move sparked off massive public concern. The incident was widely reported in the mainstream media of the United States and Europe, and governments and parliament members around the world have condemned it. We, as victims, have been discussing with our lawyers the possibility of resorting to legal actions, and the US Congress will certainly take corresponding measures against Zoom.

China has been weighing in with foreign social affairs

The incident has also shown that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is proactively attacking democratic systems around the world. They have started to interfere with the social systems and lifestyles of the United States and other countries, which is a warning the world should heed. But at the same time, some in-depth issues need to be delved into.

This Zoom Incident is actually not unprecedented. For a long time, all U.S. companies that do business with China have been bugged by various policies of the Chinese government. Even Apple is operating in accordance with the requirements of the Chinese government by removing apps with contents the CCP deems sensitive. Here is the question: Do American companies operating in China need to abide by the local laws? In fact, Zoom's response to our allegations is that they only have to comply with local laws. My answer to this question is: Yes.

As far as human right standards are concerned, the answer should be negative. If Zoom were run by me, I would definitely not do business in a country that forces my company to violate human rights for normal operations. However, for the vast majority of multinational companies, China is a huge market that caters for capitalists’ rule of thumb: making profit. For this reason, I am convinced that we cannot demand capitalists to live up to a higher moral standard. Therefore, it is understandable that American companies with operations in China are forced to accept the unreasonable demands of the Chinese government, nor can we require all Western companies to withdraw from China.

Having said that, I opine that in view of this Zoom incident, some advice can still be given on what American companies can do when confronted with obnoxious laws of China: American companies with operations in China have to abide by local laws, despite knowing that they are evil in nature. But these companies should set two bottom lines for themselves:

Companies must pay the price if they go beyond the bottom lines

First, you shall not allow a country to meddle with the speech and activities of your clients who live outside that country. What Zoom did to our events was unforgivable because they were held in the United States. Zoom should not have shut down the meetings held on the US territory upon the Chinese government’s request.

Second, for those doing business in an authoritarian country like China, if the authorities require you to take actions that jeopardize the personal safety of your clients, you should withdraw from the market rather than collaborate. Yahoo submitted its users' personal information to the Chinese government years ago, which cost the company USD 20 million for compensation.

In short, you can compromise, but there must be a bottom line. For any behavior beyond the bottom line, the company has to pay a price.

Of course, I reckon that governments around the world should not let corporates facing such dilemmas and pressures alone. Governments are responsible for protecting them by negotiating with and even confronting such countries, which is the responsibility of a democracy. Governments also have the obligation to monitor and regulate the behavior of multinational companies that operate in China. If any company goes beyond the bottom lines for profit, they, not least the US government and Congress, should make them pay the price.

(Wang Dan is founder of the think tank Dialogue China.)

---------------------------------
Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app
To know more: https://bit.ly/2yMMfQE
Apple Daily mobile app latest version DOWNLOAD NOW