On Google And China - Resist Trade Restrictions!

We can expect to hear extensive calls for the U.S. government to impose trade restrictions on Google Inc. after yesterday's report that the search engine conglomerate has agreed to censor its results in China.

I have argued in this space before why this would be a very bad idea, but I'd like to refer you to a 1997 article by James A. Dorn in The Freeman, a publication of the Foundation For Economic Education, in which the author argues in this timely classic that the best way to promote human rights around the world is to promote free trade. Dorn's piece is appropriate today because the example he used was China.

A free-market approach to human rights policy does not mean an attitude of indifference toward human rights abuses. Using slave labor or political prisoners and compelling very young children to compete in international markets are wrong. But blanket restrictions, such as the denial of most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status or the use of sanctions not directly targeting the wrongdoers, should be avoided. The problem is that even limited actions are very difficult to enforce and unlikely to bring about political change in an authoritarian regime.

Protectionist measures are more apt to radicalize than liberalize closed societies. The logical alternative is to use the leverage of trade to open authoritarian regimes to market forces and let the rule of law and democratic values evolve spontaneously as they have in Chile, South Korea, and Taiwan. The expansion of markets creates a culture of commerce and economic liberty that naturally spills over to social and political life. As people become freer in their economic life, they will demand greater autonomy in other areas, including a stronger voice in government.

The proper function of government is to cultivate a framework for freedom by protecting life, liberty, and property, including freedom of contract (which includes free international trade), not to use the power of government to undermine one freedom in an attempt to secure others. The right to trade is an integral part of an individual’s property rights and a civil right that governments should protect as a universal human right.

Is Google's concession to China's censorship demands unfortunate and offensive? You bet it is. But if Americans believe Google is contributing to human rights abuses in China, it's our responsibility to protest by boycotting the company and withdrawing our financial support, not by running to the federal government to impose trade restrictions.

Either we believe in freedom or we don't. Free trade means having to accept that there will be some negative consequences in addition to all the benefits we derive as a result of such freedom. Using our government as a vehicle to deny the Chinese people the economic freedom they will gain as a result of access to technological resources would be to fight the oppressed instead of the oppressor, and will ultimately delay any advancements of political freedom such access enables.