341–350 of 473 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell your friend to tread carefully with requests like this. My yearly "Business Conduct Training" (required by my employer) explicitly lists things like this as against company policy, a fireable offence, not to mention potentially illegal (circumventing embargoes, trade restrictions or sanctions).
In the US at least, running afoul of Export/Import controls and laws guarantees a stay at Club Fed.
Why is this interesting? Taiwan has to compete in the Olympics as Chinese Taipei or whatever. Yeah, any place that China can influence, it makes Taiwan call itself China.
It is interesting because it exposes Apple, which as a company often tries to present itself as a champion of freedom, and other modern values. Yet as is reaffirmed here (and previously with AppStore etc), when profits are involved it is willing to overlook the most egregious forms of injustice and violence. Literally every tech company stands up for good causes like BLM and LGBTQ+ rights; but the true measure of cou…
And even if they did, that ethos does not give them carte blanch to pick and choose which laws they will adhere to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US at least, running afoul of Export/Import controls and laws guarantees a stay at Club Fed.
European here: Is Club Fed slang for prison?
I have a friend working for a company whose biggest clients are in the Emirates. One of said client is the government, and it is asking them to buy some very specific equipment, knowing fully well this equipment is only sold in Israel. However, the Emirates cannot trade with Israel, and refuse to pay for any equipment labelled as coming from this country. Calling one of the officials, they asked for a solution. They…
Tell your friend to tread carefully with requests like this. My yearly "Business Conduct Training" (required by my employer) explicitly lists things like this as against company policy, a fireable offence, not to mention potentially illegal (circumventing embargoes, trade restrictions or sanctions).
I have a friend working for a company whose biggest clients are in the Emirates. One of said client is the government, and it is asking them to buy some very specific equipment, knowing fully well this equipment is only sold in Israel. However, the Emirates cannot trade with Israel, and refuse to pay for any equipment labelled as coming from this country. Calling one of the officials, they asked for a solution. They…
Yes. Some do it in Marseille, France. Citizens of many countries would be in big trouble if they have a stamp from Israeli customs on their passports. Customs apparently issue a separate document not to put a stamp on the passport as a result. This enabled many tourists who are "not supposed" to go there to nonetheless go there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Taiwan is "going to far" ethically and Apple should refuse, but I can't quite see this. And we won't see it from any big name company, since nearly everything is manufactured, in part or whole, in China.
I bought some tools at Harbor Freight recently that were stamped "Made in Taiwan"
This rule only applies to goods manufactured in Taiwan and shipped to China.
This should honestly be picked up by a larger news organization. If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan and bringing more chips to the US, Apple should be shamed for choosing Chinese profits. Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges.
You should educate yourself about the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one China policy. China is not PRC, PRC is at best the only internationally recognized government of China. Even so there is still only one China. Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US. Apple need to operate in the boundary of l…
> Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US.
One China Policy isn't a law, at least not outside the PRC; it's a gentlemen's agreement between the U.S., China (PRC), and Taiwan (ROC) which permits everybody to save face without having to go to war. It's not written down anywhere, except perhaps on a hurried memorandum.
Furthermore, the only reason the PRC represents China in the United Nations is because of another gentlemen's agreement between the PRC and the U.S. (Nixon, Kissinger) that the PRC would abstain from forcefully invading Taiwan. Up until then the ROC had the seat and would have continued to do so. (Note that this is distinct from the One China Policy, which is a face-saving public gloss on the commitments to abstain from using military force over Taiwan.)
But-for the strategic ambiguity wrt Taiwan, the U.S. is very careful not to violate Chinese territorial sovereignty. I'm not aware of any principal of international law that is per se violated by Pelosi visiting Taiwan. Perhaps the PRC has a law on the books that says otherwise, but the PRC doesn't administer Taiwan. This state affairs exists beyond written and normative international law; it just is what it is.
Now if the U.S. were to have a military presence on Taiwan, especially a permanent presence, then that would be another story. International law wouldn't figure into it either, but it would be a much clearer violation of the U.S.-PRC agreement regarding the PRC's ascension to the U.N. and the subsequent One China Policy memorandum. AFAIK, the U.S. doesn't permit military officers to enter Taiwan, at least not in their official capacity. Unlike the President, the Speaker of the House holds no military office. From the U.S. perspective, this is the no-go line.
If you want to talk about violating clearly written international agreements, let's talk Hong Kong. But that wouldn't be very productive, either, because despite the formalities the Hong Kong situation also pushes beyond the envelop of what normative international law can speak to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because then they'd get easily undercut by competition without such ethical scruples. This is a tragedy of the commons problem, you need central enforcement.
Apple would get easily undercut by competitors with lower prices? Many have tried. But yes, that could happen to other companies, which shows that consumers share responsibility for ignoring the labor and environmental conditions.
People seem to be overinflating the hell out of this. > Apple has asked suppliers to ensure that shipments from Taiwan to China strictly comply with Chinese customs regulations Duh! it's to China! You're just going to piss off your contract manufacturers who have government officials overlooking their supply.
But they have to lie in order to comply. It's not just about following stupid rules.