Image courtesy of Flickr.com
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Nearly two years ago, the 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests occupied a brief moment of prominence in the American mainstream media. The introduction of the Chinese extradition bill in Hong Kong, intended to permit the transfer of suspected criminals to the Chinese mainland, was widely criticized in the city and internationally as a clear attempt to support the extradition of political dissidents to China for punishment. The resulting protests over this gross Chinese interference in the agreed upon freedoms of the semi-autonomous region were met with a rare moment of bipartisan agreement that the civil liberties of the citizens of Hong Kong were being violated by pro-CCP forces.
Politicians and public figures from both sides of the aisle came together in a rare moment of unified solidarity for the citizens of Hong Kong. Congress quickly passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, championed in part by Princeton alums Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), condemning this violation of the sovereignty of the city, endorsing the right of Hong Kongese to protest peacefully, and sanctioning those directly involved in the movement to integrate the region with China further.
However, this unified condemnation of Sino-interventionist policy in Hong Kong and emphatic support for the freedoms of the Hong Kong people was absent in prominent parts of the American entertainment industry involved in the Chinese market. Many companies were quiet, opting to remain silent about the events occurring in Hong Kong. But others, like the NBA and Blizzard Entertainment, had much more complicated reactions to Hong Kong’s plight. Daryl Morey, general manager of the Houston Rockets, was criticized by parts of the basketball league for posting a tweet encouraging others to “stand with Hong Kong” against China. Meanwhile, Brooklyn Nets owner Joe Tsai’s social media post calling the extent of Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong “non-negotiable” was derided as “Orwellian spin” by Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska), among others.
Many of these decisions within the entertainment industry to ignore or oppose the efforts of Hong Kong protesters were clearly dependent on the allure of the Chinese market. As China has become more involved in the global economic marketplace, particularly within the service economy, the impact of their 1.4 billion population on international corporations has only increased. Their burgeoning middle class appears poised to rival the entirety of the US, Canada, and Europe in the near future and being the first to take advantage of that market has the potential to bring serious benefits to American corporations that can manage it.
However, as we have seen in the case of the NBA, these benefits do not come without certain conditions. Daryl Morey’s tweet supporting the Hong Kong protests resulted in the severance of relationships between the Houston Rockets and many Chinese corporations with ties to the nation’s communist Party like Li-Ning, a former prominent sponsor of the Rockets, and Tencent, who runs the NBA’s digital offerings in China. Companies seeking to do business in China have a tacit understanding that actions perceived as efforts to undermine the interests of the CCP will result in the loss of the privilege to operate in the Chinese market. These companies, therefore, often make a serious effort to prevent their employees from doing or saying anything to oppose the actions of the Chinese government.
Regardless of the economic incentives for these kinds of actions, American companies censoring and silencing their workers is frankly unacceptable and very dangerous in its effects on the civil liberties of American citizens. The CCP is an autocratic government that regularly and blatantly violates international law in its internal and external dealings. Preventing one’s employees from criticizing such behavior in their private capacity isn’t simply an immoral violation of their natural right to free speech; it’s a harmful endorsement of the policies and actions of undemocratic governments that would otherwise be criticized.
It is one thing for a company to maintain a policy of financial neutrality towards tyrannical governments. It is not necessarily the duty of a company to make political statements by refusing to do business with such entities. However, it is vastly different for a company to protect such governments by shielding them from reasonable condemnation due to economic benefit. The decisions of companies like the NBA to show deference to authoritarian states by discouraging their associates from speaking their minds about serious problems does material harm to the efforts of groups fighting for liberty and freedom. Corporations are often culture-setting institutions with significant influence on what consumers see and learn. Willfully suppressing the conversation around issues involving autocratic states keeps such issues out of the public eye and therefore outside the capacity of citizens to effect change.
The gaming company Blizzard’s Hong Kong controversy was another notable example of this phenomenon. During a tournament for the game Hearthstone, professional player Ng Wai Chung received a year ban and was compelled to forfeit $4000 in prize winnings for encouraging players to “Liberate Hong Kong” due to a rule that players cannot “offend the public” while at such events. Such retributive actions, clearly designed to prevent players from criticizing China, has a chilling effect on the discourse surrounding the actions of oppressive nations. For a game with 24 million players, the effects of such decisions are not small and should not be discounted. As students at a university “in service of humanity” we have a duty to oppose the actions of corporations that support the repression of free peoples by undemocratic regimes.
For companies like the NBA and Blizzard that have an outsized impact on the national conversation regarding serious topics, we must be careful that our dollars and attention are not devoted to organizations that willfully support the erosion of liberty and freedom around the world. As we have seen, the actions of these corporations are often predicated principally on the possibility of economic benefits rather than any moral considerations. Therefore, as responsible citizens as well as consumers seeking to maintain a free dialogue on issues like the tyrannical actions of the Chinese government, we must be careful to ensure that we devote our financial power to those companies that best support our interest in maintaining the right to civil discourse and not those which suppress American speech to the benefit of dictators. Those companies that are willing to support immoral regimes for the possibility of economic benefit should at least do so knowing that there will be a significant economic response by an American people dedicated not just verbally but financially to the cause of maintaining our right to free speech.
Immediately after Chung’s ban from Blizzard was announced, the gaming community went into an uproar on his behalf. After a month of significant international outcry and boycotts by its players, Blizzard eventually halved the punishment for Ng Wai Chung, returned his tournament winnings, and apologized for its handling of the issue with the player, citing its failure to live up to the expectations of its community. Consumers clearly have the ability to positively influence the decisions of Fortune 500 companies if they act collectively to make the importance of their desires known. Corporations are very receptive to economic influence and it’s high time Americans used our influence to progress our aims for good with the same readiness of our rivals. Doing so is integral to the maintenance of our personal freedoms. We cannot allow others to dictate what conduct is allowable on American platforms, especially when the other dictating is an oppressive government seeking to crush the liberties of its people. Permitting that would be a travesty, not just for the United States but for individuals who believe in democracy and freedom worldwide. Therefore we must, as citizens of America and as advocates for the flourishing of free peoples worldwide, use our authority to encourage other centers of power like corporations to support the liberties of all people.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.