Ethics Editorial Prelude, Original May 13th,Revised May 18-2020 , Article Coming Soon
(Dedicated to Dr. Li Wenliang, Wuhan, China)
Initial article, as updated June 11th focuses on the International Ethical dilemma of China's "One China" principle, Additional research on education and practice to follow.
The right for people to know critical health information and the transparency of the CCP government failed miserably resulting in the global Covid19 pandemic that may ultimately kill over a million people. For China with its 1.4 billion plus population, these deaths seem meaningless.
An analysis on the lack of any Ethics education within China which lies at the root of the deadly failure to disclose and contain the Covid19 virus for 3 weeks requires additional detailed research. An Ethics White Paper, as China likes to phrase it should also include information on the rapidly changing American and Canadian government defense responsibilities of Taiwan. Even Harvard University, which profits enormously in educating Chinese including influential CCP party members acknowledges that the hopes of educating the CCP towards rule of law has had little to no success. Many of China's CCP associated law students have simply used the prestigious association with Harvard to legitimize more of its criminal behaviors. It seems that ethics education has not transferred well.
The dangerous differences in awareness and adoption of ethics as affected by culture, education and especially governance have become all too clear. This pandemic has been a lesson to humanity that ethics must transcend culture and any form of governance. If one chooses loyalty to culture, to a ruling party, to business interests or even to family over disclosing facts upon which lives depend on, another pandemic or perhaps a nuclear war will follow.
To survive in an increasingly globalized world and have credibility in international relations let alone trade a country will have to do more than speak of ethics, it will need to demonstrate its commitment to it through continued education, measured standards and enforcement.
China has a long way to go, with its exhaustive list of CCP secrecy and open communication barriers. Even for some overseas Chinese that have been enlightened by freedom and learned universal suffrage the concept on the obligation to disclose and the right to know by others can still be compromised by a strong cultural tendency towards secrecy and fear of speaking. Sadly it takes the courage of a man like Dr. Li Wenliang in Wuhan to give his life towards hopefully awakening both a cultural and governance change. Hence this article is dedicated to him.
Foremost, Is it actually possible for the CCP regime to introduce education in ethics under its current governance model, and would there be any real accountability ? For society to practice a level of ethics and transparency required for the public to be and feel safe, state governments cannot censor, withhold information and apply 24/7 surveillance. These methods will only reinforce the secrecy of the state, leading to increased silencing of critical front line information from Doctors, Scientists, the Press and humanitarians. Other countries cannot trust and rely on relations including commerce with such a system.
The Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act, signed by Trump into law in early May, 2020 with strong bipartisan support, requires the U.S. State Department to report to Congress on steps taken to strengthen Taiwan’s diplomatic relations.
""""" It also requires the United States to “alter” engagement with nations that undermine Taiwan’s security or prosperity """""" including CANADA !
The abolishing of "One China" policies globally is fundamental to achieving progress with the CCP on business agreement ethics and trust. This CCP doctrine currently entitles China to race based rights throughout the world that have no equal. It has empowered the regime to set biased standards on ethics and laws which are racial, unverified and unenforceable. Sadly Canada currently has adopted, although unofficially the 'One-China' policy. The "One-China policy" is a policy asserting that there is only one sovereign state under the name China, as opposed to the idea that there are two states, the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC), whose official name simply incorporates the word China.
Canada does not assert that Taiwan is NOT a sovereign state, it simply accedes to the naming convention. China rejects Taiwan independence based on territory claims that are not recognized by most including America, Canada and Europe. Currently, the "One China" policy, not principle is in effect a global appeasement of the CCP around the use of the word “China” not an official recognition or agreement to the CCP “One China” principle. It is what is referred to in computer jargon to as an infinite loop in a program. One in which there is no exit until a line in the program is modified.
China has been trying to annex Taiwan unilaterally naming it as a province including using the technicalities around our naming allowances by insisting that companies like Air Canada cease to use the words “ROC”. As an appeasement of China, under threat of mainland China airport access restrictions, Canada has agreed for its National Airlines to use the phrase Chinese Taipei for example. This nuance around naming adds support to China’s belligerent claims and threats of military action to annex, a country that is neither theirs to claim nor has any interest in being part of China. There is no ethics or human rights in any of the CCP's positions.
To avoid a full scale global conflict which China threatens, most countries have elected to appease China but hopefully post Covid19 this will come under review. A Nuclear standoff may also be forthcoming if China escalates the matter further since conventional naval and land defenses under Covid 19 has many complications. Given the deadly consequences of China’s negligent failure to disclose and contain the Covid 19 virus for a period of about three weeks, many countries are reevaluating their international relations with China state. The question of ethics and trust in all relations with the CCP has been thrust front stage, tossing trade agreements aside with realizations that these prerequisites were always just really glossed over.
Reaching satisfactory enforceable terms on ethics and trustworthy conduct as part of any international agreement with China remains as nefarious as has been enforcing terms on Intellectual Property. Furthermore if China continues to hinge its relations with others on its unilateral claim to annex Taiwan, a sovereign democratic country of significance to many countries in the world then international trade agreements seem less likely. Expectations of ethics and trustworthy conduct by Chinawithin international agreements are not compatible with the uncertainties of military conflict which are now at higher risk.