Google’s Foreign Policy

Because freedom of ideas is the basis of its business, Google deals with China as if it were itself a country. But when private companies start getting involved in foreign policy, there are hidden dangers.

One could almost believe Google were a country. When Google had had enough of China’s attempt to censor its search engine, it threatened to shut down operations there. That sounds like what a nation does when it breaks off diplomatic relations with another country.

Companies have been involved in politics down through history as when Augsburg’s Fugger family financed King Charles the Fifth’s victory at the battle of Pavia. But a private company has never been so public in geopolitical circles as Google. What Google did, however, was the right move for three substantial reasons.

First, Google exemplifies the political dimension of the world of “cyber warfare.” That’s still an abstract concept for many, that to them doesn’t explain anything more than the terms “sabotage” or “vandalism.”

But because the internet is now a tangible infrastructure and not just a communications medium, cyber warfare has become something dangerous, capable of even threatening national economies.

Google defends its business model

Second, Google is protecting its own business model with its sharp criticism of China. Google earns its money mainly by directing user information aimed accurately at companies who then use that information to identify potential customers,

The plan is to substantially increase this “data mining.” Businesses will soon be capable of not only targeting advertising but also providing data useful in market research and product development. Google’s efforts to collect consumer profiles that will include DNA analysis will revolutionize the medical and pharmaceutical industries within a few years.

In order to collect such quantities of data, part of which will include highly private information, Google will have to pull off a delicate balancing act. It won’t be possible to do so without customers being first convinced that the company will not misuse their data.

Third, Google is committed to ensuring information on the internet is widely and freely available so this data can be generated in the first place. Its willingness in 2006 to include a government censoring filter in their Chinese search engine seriously eroded public confidence in Google.

Which direction will Google’s political power take?

But now that Google has chosen to confront China, it is behaving as if it were the spearhead for freedom of expression. Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) that has been at the forefront against censorship and lobbying pressure on the internet right from the early days recently commented, “Bravo, Google” on its website.

Since Google began its filtered search engine in China, EFF has been one of its most severe critics. Now it is among the first to “commend Google for its brave and forthright declaration to provide only an uncensored Chinese language version of its search engine.”

China isn’t the only nation in which Google fights for internet freedom. In its American homeland it is one of the leaders for the cause of net neutrality, maintaining that the internet needs to remain an unregulated, public entity – another condition indispensable to Google’s business.

One shouldn’t accuse Google of harboring purely selfish motives. Freedom from repression and freedom of expression aren’t just noble concepts to Google; they’re essential to its business in exactly the same way as democracy, liberty and prosperity have always been essential to a free market economy. That’s why international corporations have often historically found it to be in their own best interests to topple repressive regimes and dictators: Not so much to liberate populations as to open new markets.

Companies in a geopolitical no-man’s land

With its foray into foreign policy, Google is taking a step that conservatives and non-governmental organizations have long advocated. In this globalized world, military power and influence may no longer have the traction they once had; perhaps business will be able to accomplish more in this geopolitical no-man’s land.

This concept demands increasing attention, not least because the economically powerful BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) have since appeared on the scene. They do not consider the preservation of human rights when, for example, giving financial or developmental aid to other nations.

In crisis areas such as Darfur or Sri Lanka, Western economic pressure has little traction because those nations can get Chinese financing without burdening themselves with human rights obligations. A trans-national company often exerts more power and has more maneuvering room to redirect and control uncooperative governments.

The United States government actively supports Google in its confrontation with China, but which direction will the company’s political power take? Will Google become a symbol of freedom and prosperity like Coca-Cola and McDonald’s or a sinister global player like the United Fruit Company once was when it functioned as a front for CIA coups in Latin America?