Patriotism in the Boardroom and Pledging Allegiance to China... From: "Linda Muller" <linda@buchanan.org> To: brigade@zeus.wwol.com Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:26:31 -0500 Subject: [BRIGADE] Patriotism in the Boardroom and Pledging Allegiance to China... Dear Brigade, What follows are two outstanding columns - "Patriotism in the Boardroom" by Pat Buchanan written in 1998 -- and -- "Motorola's pledge of allegian ce -- to China?" by Terry Jeffrey editor of Human Events. For the Cause, Linda --------------------------------- Patriotism in the Boardroom by Patrick J. Buchanan June 30, 1998 Not until two-thirds of the states ratified the Constitution did America become one nation under God. Yet some patriots still date the birth of the natio n to Philadelphia, July 4, 1776. And as we prepare to celebrate the 222nd anniversary of that glorious day , many fear we are losing our country. The new century, we are instructed, will see an end of nations, as each surrenders its sovereignty to immerse itse lf in the Global Economy. Across the Atlantic, the nations of Europe are giving up control of curre ncies, economies and borders to the European Union. New power centers replace old capitals, and a mighty rival has risen up to challenge the nation-sta te -- the transnational corporation. "General Motors now has a bigger budget than the government of Denmark," writes the traditionalist newsletter Triumph of the Past, "Toyota surpass es Norway, Wal-Mart tops Poland, and Ford exceeds South Africa. Mitsubishi and Unilever outsize Indonesia and Vietnam. In fact, the hundred biggest economies in the world are equally divided between businesses and governments." As America headquarters more of these behemoth businesses than any country, we are told the future belongs to us. But are these transnationals completely loyal to America? Corporate gadfly Ralph Nader decided to test the issue. He wrote to the 1 00 largest U.S. corporations, urging that, at their next shareholders meetin gs, their CEOs lead the company in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of th e United States. From the responses, one would have thought "Tailgunner Joe " McCarthy had just demanded that the entire 1950 Harvard faculty take a loyalty oath. "(D)emanding recitations of allegiance -- in language that may not reflec t the beliefs of all persons present -- is actually contrary to the principles on which our democracy was founded," thundered Dick Huber of Aetna, of a pledge some of us took every school day. Allstate said the pledge of allegiance would be "inappropriate at a busin ess meeting." Why? Countless unions open their meetings with it. August Busch of Anheuser-Busch declared, "While our company headquarters remains in St. Louis, we are a global company." Our shareholders' meetings, he went on, "include many international employees, shareholders, representatives and visitors." But if U.S. Olympic medal winners can stand in silence as the national anthems of other athletes are played, why cannot foreign visitors stand i n respect as August A. Busch III booms out the pledge of allegiance to the flag and republic of the United States? Arco and Amoco said no. AT&T; said it would consider it. Defense contracto r Hewlitt-Packard said a pledge of allegiance to the flag would "not be a productive use of time." Said Boeing, "It is the opinion of the board tha t it is not necessary to institute the practice you propose." Boeing's CEO Phil Condit two years ago expressed his hope that the world, 20 years hence, would no longer see Boeing as an American company but a global one. Bristol-Myers found the suggestion of a pledge of allegiance "an interest ing one which we have not considered before. ... We will have to carefully consider whether the proposal advances the best interests of the company, its shareholders and employees." Caterpillar "concluded that a symbolic once-a-year gesture would not be a productive use of our time at our stockholders' meeting." But a recital o f the flag pledge takes 15 seconds! Calling itself an "international company," Coca-Cola said, "If a share ow ner were to propose that we pledge allegiance, we would certainly consider it in the context of our global business." Dayton-Hudson called the pledge not "consistent with the goal of running an efficient annual meeting." Delta said no. Kodak said a pledge of allegiance to the flag "would not be a productive use of our shareholders' time." Kodak must "maintain a global perspective to compete effectively in a global economy." Ford Motor does "not believe th at the concept of 'corporate allegiance' is possible." 3M said it would be "disrespectful" to other countries where it operates "to ask them to be b ound by a pledge of allegiance to a country not their own." But to what countr y does 3M belong? American taxpayers guarantee the Export-Import Bank loans of these companies; we bail out their investments via the International Monetary Fund; U.S. Marines have been sent to protect their property; and U.S. consular officials and presidents have promoted their sales. If they cann ot pledge loyalty to America, why should Americans be loyal to them? Consider the response of Federated Stores: Good idea; we will take it up! Happy Independence Day! And may Americans never stop celebrating it, our global corporate elite notwithstanding. ------------------ From: "Steven Hoffman" <jjjhoff@bright.net> To: "Linda Muller" <linda@buchanan.org>, Subject: Motorola's pledge of allegiance -- to China? Date sent: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:57:23 -0500 Motorola's pledge of allegiance -- to China? Corporate giant proud of strategic alliance with Beijing Editor's note: In collaboration with the hard-hitting Washington, D.C. newsweekly Human Events, WorldNetDaily brings you this special report every Monday. Readers can subscribe to Human Events through WND's on- line store. By Terence P. Jeffrey Human Events When consumer advocate Ralph Nader a few years ago asked the managers of Motorola if they would please say the Pledge of Allegiance at their an nual shareholders meetings, the company responded with indignation. "Motorola will not be adopting Mr. Nader's suggestion," said senior corpo rate counsel Carol Forsyte. "We believe that by doing so we would be introduci ng political and nationalistic overtones which have nothing to do [with] the true purpose of a stockholders meeting." This begged an obvious question: If Motorola will not pledge allegiance t o the American republic -- "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" -- to what will it pledge allegiance? One answer to that question can be found today on a website the company has posted in the People's Republic of China, which is linked to its U.S. website. A page on this Chinese site -- subtitled "China and Motorola rea ch for the sky" -- lists the company's achievements in the PRC under the following categories: a.. "Investments and technology transfer" b.. "Management localization and training" c.. "Local sourcing" d.. "Joint development: joint ventures and cooperative projects" e.. "Cooperative projects: joint technology development" f.. "Corporate citizenship" This is the sort of language one would expect from a nationalist corporat ion -- looking out for the interests of China. Just as General Motors could boas t half a century ago, "What's good for General Motors is good for America," Motorola seems to be boasting today, "What's good for Motorola is good fo r China." On this Chinese website, the company brags that its policy of providing Chinese "suppliers with designs and new technology" helped thos e firms "export U.S. $480 million worth of products in 1999" and is "an ini tiative that dovetails with the China government's own strategy for upgrading sta te- owned enterprises." "Motorola has enjoyed solid support from the Chinese government at all levels" it says. "Motorola has received accolades and awards from the Chinese government for its responsible corporate citizenship," it adds. A nd no wonder. The company boasts that, in China, it has: a.. "committed more than U.S. $1.5 billion" b.. "reinvest[ed] all profits ... back into the country" c.. "committed to localizing the staff of its operations" d.. "spent U.S. $1.02 billion ... last year on locally sourced materials, components and services" e.. "accomplished this by forming partnerships with Chinese suppliers and helping them ... with designs and new technology" f.. "established 6 joint ventures and 10 cooperative projects with some o f China's best enterprises and research facilities" g.. "erected [an 18-story building] in Beijing's business hub" h.. "set up 18 research and development centers in China with 650 researchers" i.. "established three micro-processor/ micro-controller laboratories at universities in China, and will expand this program to 20 additional universities over the next five years." Topping the list of "Motorola Cooperative Projects in China" is the Natio nal Research Center for Intelligent Computing Systems in Beijing, which is dedicated to "[r]esearch and development of advanced computer technologies." What we have here is a strategic alliance. The managers of China's Communist regime and the managers of Motorola's for-profit corporation have formed a bond based on a broadening web of common financial interests. Their entente is further entrenched with each new economic fact on the ground: new factories, new products, new markets. They are co-combatants on the fields of global commerce where the destiny of nations is now decided. It is fair to ask, then, just what is the nature of this Motorola ally? On the military front, we know it has threatened to use force against Tai wan if it declares independence, and that it has intimated it would fire nucl ear missiles at Los Angeles to punish the United States for interfering in su ch a conflict. But what about the domestic Chinese society, where Motorola is now embedded? The 1999 State Department "Country Report on Human Rights Practices in China," released February 25, answers some basic questions: a.. Is there freedom of religion? "Police closed many 'underground' mosqu es, temples, seminaries, Catholic churches and Protestant 'house churches,' many with significant memberships, properties, financial resources, and networks. Some were destroyed. Leaders of unauthorized groups are often targets of harassment, interrogations, detention and physical abuse. ... [M]ost influential positions in government are reserved for party members , and Communist Party officials state that party membership and religious belief are incompatible. Party membership also is required for almost all high- level positions in government and in state-owned businesses and organizations." b.. Is there freedom of speech? "The government does not permit citizens to publish or broadcast criticisms of senior leaders or opinions that direct ly challenge Communist Party rule. The party and government continue to control many -- and, on occasion, all -- print and broadcast media tightl y and use them to propagate the current ideological line." c.. Is there freedom of association? "Communist Party policy and government regulations require that all professional, social and economic organizations officially register with, and be approved by, the governmen t. Ostensibly aimed at restricting secret societies and criminal gangs, thes e regulations also prevent the formation of truly autonomous political, hum an rights, religious, labor and youth organizations that directly challenge government authority." d.. Is there a right to life? "Fines for giving birth without authorizati on vary. ... In Quanzhou, Fujian province, the fine for violating the birth quotas is three times a couple's annual salary. ... Local authorities in a Fujian town systematically used coercive measures such as force abortion, sterilizati on, detention and destruction of property to enforce birth quotas." e.. Are there free elections? "The CCP [Chinese Communist Party] retains a tight rein on political decision-making and forbids the creation of new p olitical parties. The government intensified efforts to suppress the China Democra tic Party. ... Public security organs arrested nearly all of its most importa nt leaders." f.. Is there due process of law? "Arbitrary arrest and detention remain s erious problems. ... At both the central and local levels, the government and th e CCP frequently interfere in the findings of the judicial system and dicta te court decisions." This is only the tip of the iceberg of Chinese tyranny. To read more abou t the 230,000 dissidents in "re-education through labor" camps, the scores of monks, priests, nuns and ministers murdered or imprisoned, and the reign of terror visited on China's little girls, see the entire report online. But it is enough to show that Motorola now maintains two distinct wings t o its corporate work force: In the United States, it employs free people. I n China, it employs unfree people. This could explain why the company objects to the "political and national istic overtones" of saying the Pledge of Allegiance at shareholders meetings. I f a Chinese Motorola employee stood up at a Motorola factory in China and suggested that workers there pledge allegiance to making China "one natio n under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," he might very well be arrested. If his coworkers joined him, they, too, might be arrested. If all of Motorola's Chinese workers risked their lives to pledge allegia nce to making China "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," Motorola's $1.5-billion investment in China would be at risk. It wo uld no longer "dovetail with the China government's strategy for upgrading state - owned enterprises." It likely would lose its "solid support from the Chin ese government at all levels." It could forget about "accolades and awards fr om the Chinese government for its responsible corporate citizenship." A Lech Walesa in China today would have to strike against Motorola. So, what is Motorola doing now to alter China's political status? It has launched an all-out lobbying effort in Washington to give the Chinese reg ime Permanent Normal Trade Relations with the United States and membership in the World Trade Organization, where it would have a vote equal to that of the United States.

T H E    I N T E R N E T    B R I G A D E Established April 1995 Post Office Box 650266 - Potomac Falls, Virginia 20165 Linda Muller - WebMaster http://www.buchanan.org Disclaimer