When you grow up in the U.S., and then devote your career to writing
about domestic corporations, you don’t spend a lot of time thinking
about the rule of law, or why it matters. It’s like the air you breathe —
you just assume it’s always going to be there.
Yes, the U.S. legal system has plenty of flaws, but you could always
count on companies accused of wrongdoing getting their day in court. The
government might try to block a merger, but the rationale was
invariably based on its interpretation of antitrust law, not on a
president’s disapproval. When a corporate executive was accused of a
crime, it was because prosecutors had legitimate reasons to believe the
executive did something illegal.
The rule of law provides the assurance that so long as you abide by the
law, no one is going to arrest you arbitrarily, or take your company
away for an illegitimate reason. Investors know they can safely invest
their money.
I stopped taking the rule of law for granted in 2010, when
I began writing about Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
You may recall him as the original oligarch, Russia’s richest man in
the early 2000s. By the time I started to focus on him, he had long
since been stripped of his company, Yukos, and had spent seven years in a
Siberian prison. Indeed, he was then on trial for a new set of
“crimes”; if found guilty — hardly in doubt — his sentence would likely
be extended by at least a decade.
Which brings me to the American president, Donald Trump. Ever since
he took office, pundits have been writing about how he has caused the
erosion of important democratic norms. As a business journalist, I’ve
been equally horrified by his undermining of the rule of law as it
applies to business.
Trump wants the U.S. Postal Service to raise the rate it
charges Amazon.com Inc. to deliver packages purely to punish its chief
executive Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post. His constant
criticism of CNN may have influenced the Justice Department to oppose
AT&T’s merger with Time Warner, which owns the cable network. Just
last week, Trump called for General Motors Co. — and General Motors
alone — to be stripped of a federal subsidy for electric cars because he
is angry it is closing some factories in the Midwest. (
The government later said he wanted to end the subsidy for all companies.)
Which brings me to the American president, Donald Trump. Ever since
he took office, pundits have been writing about how he has caused the
erosion of important democratic norms. As a business journalist, I’ve
been equally horrified by his undermining of the rule of law as it
applies to business.
Trump wants the U.S. Postal Service to raise the rate it
charges Amazon.com Inc. to deliver packages purely to punish its chief
executive Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post. His constant
criticism of CNN may have influenced the Justice Department to oppose
AT&T’s merger with Time Warner, which owns the cable network. Just
last week, Trump called for General Motors Co. — and General Motors
alone — to be stripped of a federal subsidy for electric cars because he
is angry it is closing some factories in the Midwest. (
The government later said he wanted to end the subsidy for all companies.)
Which brings me to the American president, Donald Trump. Ever since
he took office, pundits have been writing about how he has caused the
erosion of important democratic norms. As a business journalist, I’ve
been equally horrified by his undermining of the rule of law as it
applies to business.
Trump wants the U.S. Postal Service to raise the rate it
charges Amazon.com Inc. to deliver packages purely to punish its chief
executive Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post. His constant
criticism of CNN may have influenced the Justice Department to oppose
AT&T’s merger with Time Warner, which owns the cable network. Just
last week, Trump called for General Motors Co. — and General Motors
alone — to be stripped of a federal subsidy for electric cars because he
is angry it is closing some factories in the Midwest. (
The government later said he wanted to end the subsidy for all companies.)
China is furious, accusing the U.S. of “resorting to despicable
hooliganism” and demanding Meng’s release. That’s to be expected. What I
didn’t expect was the absence of any outcry in the U.S.
Commentators have focused
on the arrest’s effect on tech stocks, and on its potential to further
damage U.S.-China relations. But no one seems outraged at the
possibility that the U.S. nabbed a top Chinese executive as a proxy for a
company it may want to punish.
Note EU-Digest : As the article notes "the absence of any outcry in the U.S. is amazing - Commentators mainly focused on the arrest’s effect on tech stocks, and on its potential to further damage U.S.-China relations. But no one seems outraged at the possibility that the U.S. nabbed a top Chinese executive as a proxy for a company it may want to punish. As to the possibility that this Huawei executive is being arrested because the company might be installing spyware in their software? Who can say that Microsoft and other US tech companies don't do the same on behalf of the US government".
Read more: Let’s Take a Closer Look at That Huawei Arrest - Bloomberg
