A disturbing report from Techzone.com, with a hat-tip to Instapundit:

Recently, technology companies who have opened shops for business in China are confronted with an ethical dilemma. In a quest for growth and profits, how much do they kowtow to the Chinese government, which tramples human rights and demands corporations to assist in continued crackdowns of freedom?

All the major search engines have given in to Chinese demands to throttle liberty in exchange for access to the Chinese market. Google has removed news listing from its popular news search to publications critical of Chinese policy such as Epoch Times, Voice of America and a dozen other publications. Microsoft has blocked users of its MSN site from using the terms “freedom,” “democracy” and other concepts China has designated as “dangerous.”

As a former Wall Streeter, I’m well aware of the argument that companies are in business to maximize shareholder value. I also understand that, should Google be the only search engine company to refuse to abide by the Chinese government’s requirements, it would be competitively disadvantaged. There are other considerations, however. First, if, in the name of the war on terror, our government were to consider passing a law blocking such terms as “bin Laden” and “explosive devices,” it’s a safe bet that Google and others would strenuously object. Second, why can’t the technocrats employed by the Chinese government be responsible for adding a layer of software that would filter out objectionable search requests? The onus for censorship should rest upon the shoulders of the Chinese government, not on those of the search engine companies.

This episode reminds me of the years before our involvement in World War II, during which many American raw material and capital equipment companies (for instance, IBM) continued to sell their goods to Nazi Germany and fascist Japan well after President Roosevelt began his effort to persuade Americans that they threatened our security. Trade with our potential enemies ceased only after it was embargoed.

Today, we have made two Faustian bargains to maintain our way of life: with the Chinese, who, by financing a large portion of our budget deficit, are propping up our housing market by keeping mortgage interest rates low, and with the Saudis, who are sustaining our economy by keeping the oil flowing. I’m not proposing that we renege on either, but I worry about the day when a currently unforeseen threat to our national interest emerges as a potential deal-breaker. In such a circumstance, would an American president impose a Rooseveltian embargo? I doubt that the current administration would, as its track record shows that it isn’t inclined to ask for, much less demand, sacrifices by the American people.