The tech industry has, historically and in aggregate, had pretty solid rates of returns. If I was sitting on a dwindling store of natural resources as my primary store of wealth, I would probably want to try to diversify that wealth into other areas and grow that wealth aggressively while my potentially limited income source is still highly profitable.
I'm not sure that more nefarious aims need to be posited than simple avarice.
There is a lot of Saudi money and they are willing to invest it. And their money is just as good for hiring programmers and renting servers as anyone else's.
> And their money is just as good for hiring programmers and renting servers as anyone else's.
maybe you didn't mean it this way, but i was struck by the nonchalance of this statement, as if being able to spend money justifies taking the investment. and i presume that's exactly why the article was written, to question that kind of stance.
now i love tech, and will defend our ability to progress and advance and make new things where there were none. and sometimes that requires compromise, like taking money from flawed people and institutions (as we all are). but none of us gets a free pass from morality, not even in business. these need to be considered, weighed and balanced decisions.
just because we codify our morality in law and abdicate enforcement to police doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold each other acccountable as well. in fact, holding each other accountable is crucial to ensuring a fair and just society. sometimes we must sacrifice a bit today to make sure we have justice tomorrow. a functioning society requires that we keep each others' avarice in check.
> but none of us gets a free pass from morality, not even in business
What? That's news to me. What about the entire defence industry? What about all the politicians that take a cushy job in the companies they helped during their time in office and who can be directly held accountable by the electorate? And why should anyone question the Saudis when they just signed a multi billion dollar weapon deal with the US government. Your statement sounds very naive.
> So you are saying you don't have any use for the idea of morality.
To a degree I agree with this statement though. Morality in politics and corporations seems to be purely a tool for those without morality. That is to say, "X would never do that, why do we need laws for it?"
As far as I'm concerned, morality is for a person, unique and without power. If any (meaningful, I guess) power is obtained, such as in companies and politicians, checks and balances need to be in place to prevent abuse, corruption, etc.
We seriously need vast and in depth auditing in politics, because morality is long failed the world.
Of course - but why would we trust politicians to have the ethics/morality to construct their own checks and balances?
My point is that politicians cannot be relied upon to have morality. Checks and balances are needed to ensure even those without morals adhere to some sane laws.
yes, you should be upset at those things. that's exactly what i'm talking about. don't just accept unethical behavior as fait acccompli. say something about it. let your voice be heard, by the people involved, as well as the people around you. particularly when it involves institutions like corporations and governments that people like to hide behind.
I think they have the correct understanding of the is/ought dichotomy. You absolutely shouldn't get a free pass from morality. It doesn't change the fact that, most of the time, you absolutely do.
To the list of examples of people getting a free pass from morality, I'd add the entire advertising industry, and quite a lot of stuff done in journalism. And many small business owners.
The population is large and diverse. There are lots of people willing to begin startups. Some won't accept Saudi money, some will. Those who will survive better. It's as simple as that - Saudi money created a lot of the tech industry, so the survival bias is what creates a tech industry willing to accept that money.
Nice words, but unfortunately money is all that matters at end of the day.
If most people had the same philosophy you described, USA would have stopped ALL oil imports after 9/11, and start massive investments in electric vehicles and public transportation right then.
What if the US investor is Harvey Weinstein and you've just found out he's a terrible person? Are you obligated to go find other investors at (presumably) worse terms and buy him out?
> but none of us gets a free pass from morality, not even in business.
What? It's certainly not the business role to make any moral decisions - while we don't yet have true simple responsibility principle in our society, we're thankfully have some separation of responsibility. If you think that a certain country is immoral and we shouldn't do business with it, lobby for sanctions - this way all businesses will have to abide, without (1) doing things that are completely out of their responsibilities (passing judgement) and (2) failing at their main mission - ROI - by voluntarily giving up competitive advantage.
> What? It's certainly not the business role to make any moral decisions
You forget that businesses don't make decisions at all. A business is not a person, it has no capability to make decisions. The employees that work for the company make the decisions, and they certainly have an obligation to behave ethically.
> they certainly have an obligation to behave ethically
What? How exactly did they enter into this obligation? Also, how on Earth can you have an obligation that involves a term that everyone interprets in his own way?
US government has proped up Saudia for years US states and cities and have taken billions in investment form Arab countries I don't get why this question is being asked of the US tech industry alone.
Because traditional media like newspapers, even one like NYT that's handled the last couple of decades as well as any, never miss a chance to take a potshot at the upstarts over in SV, especially when something like the current election influence brouhaha has them already on the back foot.
You're right; it would be much more honest to ask about the influence of Saudi money and Saudi oil in American business, government, and society more generally. But that's not a conversation anyone close to power wants to have; for one thing, the conclusions are uncomfortable, and for another, no one's hands are clean.
yep kind of confused to. The silicon valley is a for-profit sector, when they write "diversity, inclusiveness, fairness" and so forth on their banners they are very much qualifying this within a business context.
People need to be a little more honest and accept that those slogans are marketing messages, nobody in the valley is seriously going to turn an investment away for moral reasons
I wouldn't say "nobody." I am personally aware of people who have, for example, turned down money from Yuri Milner/DST for reasons that were at least somewhat moral in nature. So it does happen. But these people had other good options so it was really a choice of who they were going to take money from.
It's when you don't have a choice or a questionably moral party offers significantly better terms that it's hard to turn it down.
Just curious, what's the moral problem with Yuri Milner? I don't know much about him except that he's Russian, which I sure hope isn't considered a moral problem in its own right.
I took that as people need to be a little more honest and accept that those slogans are lies and bullshit.
This kind of attitude is exactly the problem. Sure, they are for profit, but since when is that the only thing that matters? I would never knowingly take blood money from a dictator, even if it meant I lived an impoverished life. If the company I worked for took such money, I would begin looking for alternate employment.
No one is asking why do people take money from bad people, no one is that naive and it's naive to think that they are. We're all familiar with the concept of greed. What they're asking is why do we let this happen in a country that boasts about its commitment to democracy and human rights?
> What they're asking is why do we let this happen in a country that boasts about its commitment to democracy and human rights?
don't get me wrong, I care about this as much as you do. I'm just saying that the valley itself is not the right place for this, it's a political matter. we shouldn't waste our time going on a deep introspection tour into 'tech values', they have a duty towards their shareholders as much as BP or Exxon.
> they have a duty towards their shareholders as much as BP or Exxon
Or as little. The concept of fiduciary duty is just a hack to keep corporations working in the service of capital, rather than, you know, the common good or whatever. It's neither a legal standard nor an economic imperative, just a convenient myth. I guess it can be encoded into the charter of a company, in which case it is their imperative, but I digress.
But I totally agree that it's absurd that this debate is being scoped to the tech industry.
I guess some people see it troubling that the guardians of human rights of modern world are so willing to take funding from nations that doesn't value such rights.
Basically Silicon Valley companies are very vocal about protecting human rights (which is good), and turn around and accept funding from nations that don't value them.
And it's not like these SV Companies didn't have any other source of funding.
> What they're asking is why do we let this happen in a country that boasts about its commitment to democracy and human rights?
The let part is very curious for its implication. What would the proposal be exactly, other than using violence and bureaucracy (every investment goes through an inherently corrupt government investment approval board) to curb free association and dictate capital flows through a command & control filter?
Want to invest in Coca Cola? No you may not, they've killed millions of people with obesity, diabetes and cancer over decades. So says some government tyrant dictating what you're allowed to invest into.
Want to start a marijuana company and take an investment from another marijuana company? No you may not, it's a schedule one drug that is evil, according to some government drug enforcement tyrant. They're not about to let you do such a thing.
You'd have to isolate yourself from half the planet economically to follow it to its proper conclusion. That includes: China, most of Africa, most of the Middle East, half of South America, several Eastern European nations, Russia, along with plausibly India and the US. And really where would we draw the line (other than arbitrarily by previously mentioned government tyrants)? Let's review the historical slave trade practices of various European nations for example, surely that counts against them in this absurdist premise. No investments are to ever be allowed from the Netherlands accordingly.
I'm sorry, exactly what kind of socioeconomic policy do you support? You speak as if you are a proponent of free market capitalism. Is that so?
We live in the real world, where things are not black and white, but that line you talk about? It's called law and we will be spending at least the next couple of centuries working out the kinks.
I really doubt it, not your virtue signaling but the fact that you think your money is even remotely clean.
Did you take money from a VC?
Heck did you take money from a Bank? Would you surprise you to know that virtually every bank actively launders money for drug lords, terrorists and every other sort of undesirables?
Money by definition isn’t clean, Saudi Arabia, UAE and the likes have one of the largest investment funds in the world you can’t withdraw a dollar from a bank without touching that money.
Do you think I'm an idiot? I know that basically half the things I own are at the expense of others, like my nice monitors and other electronics. However, this is a huge step away from taking money from dictatorships and slave traders. Let's be sure we are both talking about the same thing here. I hope to one day apply the skills I have gained at the expense of others to better the lives of the less fortunate to a much greater extent than I have harmed them. It is my ethical duty to do so.
I'm not some confused idealist and I don't appreciate your condescending attitude. I do not personally have a bank account. It is unavoidable that my company has a bank account, and the fact that the money is dirty is a separate issue and needs to be addressed. On the other hand, it isn't unavoidable to turn down investments from bad characters. In the event that my company would knowingly accept such money, I would leave. So I don't understand your point.
You're not the first person to try this angle, and honestly others have made a better argument than you. Stop playing devil's advocate, and let's talk about the reality we actually live in.
If my wife hates me for not taking blood money, I have failed to find a compatible life partner.
If my children hate me for it, I have failed to educate them about morality.
Whatever kind of ill will falls my way as a result of sticking to my guns and valuing the herd over the individual, I will take it with a smile. Because I can sleep at night knowing that I didn't decide that my own petty little problems are more important than the problems faced by people living under dictatorship.
Love can be an incredibly powerful thing. Love can be an incredibly selfish thing. Love can bring peace to all who accept it. Love can be the spark that leads to war. It is neither purely a good or evil thing. It cannot be used as an excuse for supporting the systematic degradation of human rights. That is love being selfish. Because it's not about the wives and children of the world, it is about your wife and your children.
I love all you write. I'm this close to pretending to disagree just to make you argue more :)
> If I had a friend and loved him because of the benefits which this brought me and because of getting my own way, then it would not be my friend that I loved but myself. I should love my friend on account of his own goodness and virtues and account of all that he is in himself. Only if I love my friend in this way do I love him properly.
-- Meister Eckhart
> If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty. In fact, they even believe that it is proof of the intensity of their love when they do not love anybody except the "loved" person. [..] Because one does not see that love is an activity, a power of the soul, one believes that all that is necessary to find is the right object - and that everything goes by itself afterward. This attitude can be compared to that of the man who wants to paint but who, instead of learning the art, claims that he just has to wait for the right object - and that he will paint beautifully when he finds it.
The point is made in the article that a lot of this money was not taken in order to stay alive at all. The concrete example is Slack taking $250 million that they haven't even earmarked for anything in particular, just "operational flexibility".
It's a nice play on emotions to bring up "wife and children", but that's not reality here.
It's hard for people to understand it, and this is not the first time I've been accused of lying about this very thing... But when I say never, I mean it.
My principle on this matter is more important than any emotion I may have.
Some people feel like it's ok to be selfish as long as they don't directly see the results of their selfishness. Yet imagine if every time you went to pick up your check, you were forced to watch a woman get stoned to death because someone raped her, and the ones doing the stoning were the ones handing you the check.
Any person that is okay with this scenario is a scourge on this planet.
Any person who isn't okay with this scenario, but is ok with taking blood money from foreign countries where they do not have to see the violence actually taking place, well honestly I just pity them for living their life in such a state of confusion.
Yeah. Mark Twain's story (warprayer.org) comes to mind.
People love to argue for the abuser. Any argument you can make for "having" to, say, become an SS officer to feed your family, is outweighed by the much more justifiable need to kill that SS officer to protect many more lives.
The people who are on the receiving end of stuff like this usually don't get to post on HN, and to signal obedience towards their murderers, while giving no real thought to those they murder, well... as Ilse Aichinger said, to forget the dead is to murder them again.
> Even if you would need this money to keep your own wife and children alive?
If I'd live under circumstances where I indeed had no other choice, maybe. Luckily, I live in Western society, so the answer to your question is "can't happen here".
so the answer to your question is "can't happen here"
... right now. But it could not that long ago, and when the wind changes, maybe it could again. Why does the West take oil/blood money? Because we are - no pun intended - a society built on sand.
The problem is that even if you have benevolent leaders in charge of the major players in a market, all it does is create opportunity for some immoral actor to enter the market to realize the profit opportunity.
I can't think of an example that a modern corporation has done something against their benefit for purely for moral reasons.
This is the responsibility of effective government regulation and consumer choice. If we leave it up to the market, we will be continually disappointed.
I don't know of a better idea than a system of checks and balances between gov, private corporations, and the people.
The thing is each of those serves useful functions so it would be harmful to eliminate or neuter any one of them.
So it seems clear to me there is a lot of value in a division in power between all three. But the trend has been towards more government power, and to more private capital in fewer hands.
I'm sure there is a better way than having this framework, I just don't know if anyone has come up with it yet.
The question that comes to mind then is whether moral or profit (or something else not on the moral end of the scale) was the driver of that decision ...
Surely there's some people they'd turn down money from. I doubt anyone in the valley is gonna accept a check publicly from harvey weinstein right now. You're right that it's a business decision more than moral, but given enough pressure, the business decision will tilt the other way.
A very good explanation of why capitalism is an imoral system. Anyone who can't understand this simple fact is just losing their times. The shadier your scheme for making money, the further away you get (as long as you don't go to jail) because that's the whole nature of the beast.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the fruit of this is going to be. It's a nice reminder that most business/industry is outside of morals. It's not that all of it is immoral, but rather that it exists without any moral requirement and most of the times not having morals is an advantage.
Also, if people really thought SV had any care at all for ethics and morals even before this they must've missed pretty much all of the news about SV for years and years. Not caring about what's right is expected, as long as you don't get caught. It's just a risk/reward thing.
I move among different circles of friends. Some studied philosophy and political science, others arts in general, and others computer science.
It's scary that tech people have this very "blase" attitude (oversimplification perhaps?) that one's motive when it comes to how to handle distribution of money comes down to simple "meritocracy" and/or "greed."
As if the very fact that blaming the innate human debility of giving in to avarice or greed does not presuppose much more problems, such as ulterior motives, cultural bias, nepotism, etc.
There is, of course, the notion that the bigger a corporation gets (e.g., a conglomerate), the more dehumanizing it is. With such large sums of money being moved around (to whatever end or outcome) comes more "bottom line" interests and "corporate interests," and as such, it is less about the individual. The repercussions of this, which are pretty evident to me, is that it creates an institution or entity or agent ("corporation," if you want) that does not have a moral framework or acts not humanely but immorally, while its shareholders and investors can sleep comfortably at night because they distance the self from the company, so it is not the person acting immorally, but some "unknown force" (the Company), which, using reason, cannot actually be "immoral," because surely only humans can act in such a way.
Objects are amoral. When humans create structures in which they align themselves with immoral incentives, they're being immoral. The failure to be good is being evil in my books; there is no neutrality and there is no mediocrity, there is doing your part or guilt.
And no, nobody is 100% innocent and nobody is 100% guilty. Nobody made themselves out of nothing. Everybody started out as a helpless baby and the range of experiences one can get exposed to before even being able to attempt defend oneself is vast. But so what if every abuser got abused in some way or another, or was withheld some crucial things needed for development? Then don't hate them, but absolutely stop them.
Contrary to popular belief, economy is not a binary system. There is a huge range of decisions that can be pursued and each decision has a particular interest. Modern societies have decided to take the "market-friendly" decisions each step of the way instead of the human- and environment-friendly decisions with the excuse that this is the least of "two" evils.
This is an economic system created and maintained by humans. The morality or immorality is a property of those who maintain it, no matter how much these people try to dissuade others of this simple fact.
Agreed. Occam's razor is well applied here. Everyone else is investing in tech to get rich, I see no reason to suppose card carrying capitalist Saudi's wouldn't be driven by the allure of profit as well.
> I'm not sure that more nefarious aims need to be posited than simple avarice.
Without making any comment on the issue of Saudi money, I take issue with the reasoning there. That's effectively saying "there is a simple potential explanation, therefore there's no need to investigate". It's not like being simple therefore means it is the correct explanation, not does it mean that other potential explanations are therefore wrong or invalid.
Are we more likely to see more inherited value come from net negative cash ROI investments? (example - campaign donation) Sure. However, I think it's wrong to assume that just because we return a net positive cash ROI on a financial investment that we shouldn't assume that a non-cash ROI value is achievable.
You mean aside from tarring all Muslims or all Saudis as the same as ISIS (a millennial cult) and Norway isn't as pure as you might think - Scandinavia kept on with eugenics long after the rest of the world recoiled in horror
You seem to be picking very narrow but randomly arbitrary things to compare both countries with, or making wild assumptions about what others would use to compare them on.
How about an overall view of broader things like human rights, corruption, democracy etc?
I don't get the reasoning to be against it. If your goal is "global liberation", taking money from oppressive regimes its a pretty darn fast way to do it. You make the oppressors pay for the future liberation. We should applaud if thats whats happening.
I think it's naive to think that taking money from oppressive regimes has no other effect than depleting their cash reserves. Google and Facebook seem to have no qualms about acquiescing to Chinese censorship demands. I think it's folly to think Saudi money won't or doesn't have at least some nefarious influence somewhere. It's worth at least taking a look.
Its worth 'taking a look', sure, but its definitely been the other way around. The article itself reminds us of how Twitter was important during the Arab Spring. Wouldn't that Saudi money have been instrumental in the opposite of what the article points at?
It is not “definitely” the other way around. Quite the contrary.
The Arab Spring began in 2010 and lasted several years. The (first) Saudi investment in Twitter didn’t happen until December of 2011, and by then much of the region was already on fire. In fact, it’s notable that after the $300M investment, the following summer is when Syria devolved into total Civil War - with February being when Assad invaded Homs.
So, no, I’m still skeptical that we should be allowing this. Given the regional alignment of the Saudis, seeing Syria (an Iranian ally) devolve into chaos wouldn’t have been something they’d exactly move mountains to stop.
"I’m still skeptical that we should be allowing this."
Who is we. It's a very different thing to say that there is an ideological compromise or hipocrisy, to State enforced commercial blockades.
And the dire situation of syria doesn't have anything to do with Tweeter. Its as relatable as saying that we should ban dates because they come from the middle east, funding terrible wars.
Oh yeah? Don't know about the US, but certainly here in Europe criticism of Islam is verging on thought crime these days. If you want to know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticise.
Well if you want to talk sanctions, I'd say selling them $110 billion in weapons a few months back is slightly more concerning than slamming shut the bank counter screens on them.
Selling weapons to Saudis has been going on for decades, Trump, Obama, Clinton, Bush... all have been selling them weapons for billions of dollars.
It's pretty big hypocrisy of US, on one hand you consider Iran the most evil nation state in the world (or at least ME region) and have been sanctioning them for decades (with slight easing of that approach recently), on the other hand nobody bats an eye for selling weapons to SA and treating them as a great ally and friend.
I never could understand this big glaring hypocrisy from my European point of view. Perhaps it has something to do with politics in US but even then it's hard for me to understand why the one is ally and the other enemy.
> I never could understand this big glaring hypocrisy from my European point of view.
Surely you're joking. All the major European nations have been masters of exactly what you're describing for centuries. It has been historically routine European behavior.
There are plenty of modern examples of it. See: the French, UK and German relationship with Iraq pre Gulf War and their assistance with Iraq vs Iran. Germany massively supplied Iraq with the ability to make chemical weapons.
Before the US made the mistake of deeply intertwining itself throughout what goes on in the Middle East, the major European nations had been at it for centuries (and several of them are still very actively doing exactly the same things the US is doing, usually in proportion to their economic or military capabilities).
I'm aware of it. The difference is most European countries have no real way to extend their military or economic power meaningfully.
Only US is capable of invading almost any country it wants relatively easily due to its huge navy and aircraft and military bases all over the world. With its huge economy only US can really put meaningful sanctions on foreign countries (US navy basically singlehandedly controls international maritime trade). Notice that almost all sanctions are led by US as EU just nods in agreement and does whatever US tells them to do.
So similar hypocrisy from European countries is less dangerous but US with its power akin to British Empire before can literally rewrite borders around the world and overthrow governments at whim. So when US says Saudi Arabia is an ally and Iran is enemy, that dictates the policy of the whole western world basically.
> They eventually came to an agreement that centered around U.S. support and military training for Saudi Arabia, then a fledgling country surrounded by stronger nations, in return for oil and political support in the region.
Maybe the problem is the point where they exploit their own citizens, enslave foreigners, fund terrorism, and abuse women - not where they do all that and then invest money in US tech industry? Otherwise it sounds like we're ok with all this enslavement, abuse and all, but just to a point - and the breaking point where we say "no more! we really need to have a serious talk about it now!" is buying AAPL stock. Doesn't sound good to me.
Isolation has been proven not to spread capitalism as well as trade. China, Iran, and more got better at human rights with free trade with free capitalistic societies
I take your point, but I never found SV to be particularly more moral or just than any other money hub. We aren't particularly surprised when Wall Street makes decisions purely based on money.
SV is not particularly moral in relationship to the rest of the society, neither should it be - there's no reason why knowing how to program or assemble electronic gadgets makes one more morally advanced.
However, when all that stuff in Saudia happens, I don't see too many articles in the Big Press worrying about it day and night. But when they buy some AAPL stock suddenly NYT wakes up and cries out for the inhumanity of the Saudi regime. Where were you all the time before?!
I wouldn't expect any particular moral advancedness from SV and Wall Street. But I would expect that the same people who slept through decades of Saudis being around, doing what they do, sending money into the US and buying all kind of stuff won't wake up now and start crying "but how can SV accept money from evil Saudis!"
I mean it's good we're talking morals. But it is very questionable that we are only talking morals in very isolated cases. It is good to have principles, but when principles are taken out of the pocket when it's convenient and hidden back what that is more convenient, those aren't principles one can respect.
We don’t have any moral or ethical ability to police the Saudis or any other foreign state on those issues, and moralizing from afar accomplishes nothing.
But the tech industry and the individuals within it can choose who we do business with, cries of “fiduciary duty” notwithstanding.
The best way to bring countries into the fold of western civilization, to convince them to adopt our beliefs and values, is to engage with them in trade.
Exclusionary tactics have not had great results, historically.
I see your point, but practically speaking they can give tech company is money and still stop women from driving. It seems like they take the profits from trade and give it to terrorists, so we should probably brainstorm other solutions and not create dead ends with pseudo-platitudes
We've come from far, far worse. To suggest that global trade is a dead end is an absurdity -- founding the UN and fostering trade has brought enormous and unprecedented levels of progressive prosperity across the globe.
Dead end? Only if you're ignoring the last century of history.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but we aren't innocent either. I'd say perhaps on a spectrum they are worse than us on human rights, but there was the Iraq war, Vietnam , etc. Are we supposed to no longer pay taxes or use government provided infrastructure?
You are correct, but not quite applicable in this debate.
SV companies didn't actively order/control invading other nations or violate human rights. In fact, they are very vocally against US/West doing such things.
But the sovereign funds from ME that are providing funding are pretty much the same people in charge of those nations.
Ensuring human rights for everything in the tech value chain is going to be almost impossible.
Also consider that if you do this, then the investors will just set up trusts. They'll invest in the companies that invest in the investment companies.
You apply pressure on companies taking investment from the Saudis collectively.
If you can’t support Uber because of an atmosphere of sexually harassment, how can you support them when their investment dollars are coming from a country that subjugates women? That creates an indentured servant class from imported labor? That sort of argument. It’s blood money, and that’s the narrative you use (if one was so inclined).
You apply pressure on companies taking investment from the Saudis collectively.
That's just rephrasing it... how do you apply pressure? Everyone needs oil, many don't care about these issues, so how do we make them toe a line? What pressure do we exert? How much political capital do we burn without a hope of return?
At the end of the day though, you say "blood money" as though both sides aren't drenched in it. Moreover, whoever the Saudis are killing, it's with our weapons systems. They're newcomers to a game that the US has been playing for centuries, and Europe much longer. They're something between our rogue asset in the region, and our abusive soon-to-be-ex-spouse. Everyone sees it coming, especially the Saudis who are going so far as to clean house and contemplate an Aramco IPO to avoid being reclaimed by the desert.
Diplomacy is the art of saying “good dog” until you make it to the rock. We’re not to the rock yet.
I’d agree with your sentiment that they’re too much of an ally for anything meaningful to be done about their investments, but the winds shift quickly.
Minimum standards of conduct before a nation is allowed to do trade another nation or to join a trade agreement...or basically like most other negotiations.
This is the same country that the US funnels weapons into, and uses for leverage in the region. Does it make the US complicit in the actions that Saudi Arabia does? Now does it make sense to ask for Saudi Arabia to be sanctioned when it comes to business investments?
So party A has high standards, parties B and C don't and just trade with each other. Party A withers and and its resources are eventually aligned with B and C anyway. This is not an effective way to fight anything, it's just suicide.
Just quoting @l33tbro <<Well if you want to talk sanctions, I'd say selling them $110 billion in weapons a few months back is slightly more concerning than where they invest.>>
The purpose of political rhetoric is political. The purpose of pro-human-rights language in the west is to change the political order in the west to the advantage of the orators. It is NOT to make things pro-human-rights.
So you're violating the rules. You propose actual change. This is not allowed. You only get to propose putting the current favorites into "power" (for them of course the same rules apply: they don't get to make actual change except on the edges of the sidelines. E.g. assign construction projects to their favorites).
This is as true in San Francisco as it is in Washington.
I'm not sure that more nefarious aims need to be posited than simple avarice.