From Bangkok to Bangalore, What Isn’t Outsourced?

In an age of shrinking economies and a time when it seems nothing is made in the USA anymore except financial scandals, many pundits say the question is not what is outsourced but simply what is not. In California, a state with governance marred by bankruptcy and disputes between Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature, discussion of outsourcing has morphed into radical action: the governor decided last week to outsource the California legislature to China.

“Yah, I’ve had enough already with the little girlie-men in de California legislature, you know?” the governor said on Meet the Press last Sunday. “Dis is it. I’m gonna CRUSH deir little GIRLIE-MUSCLES and send dem all to China to squabble over dere! If dey don’t like it, dey can lump it. A few sessions with a bunch of tight-wadded Chinese bean counters is just what dey need. Let dem shut up and enjoy some dim sum for a change while I balance da budget.”

In Beijing, however, the Chinese government was less than receptive to the idea. “We already have provincial legislatures,” trade minister Shi Guangsheng said yesterday. “First of all, this is not a trade issue. If the Americans wish to outsource all their private-sector employment, we are more than happy to assume ownership of the American middle class. But the California Congress would most likely find little to occupy them in China. We already have provincial legislatures, and besides, we don’t have any girlie-men in China and frankly we don’t want any.”

California lawmakers aside, it is well known that just about everything else American has already been outsourced. Americans no longer even lick their own stamps, that function having been exported to dingy streets from Bangkok to Bangalore. In Bangkok, Thailand, the stamp-licking company sign, tucked away between the fishmongers and laundries, says ME LICKEE, YOU LIKEY? Inside, what looks like a sweatshop is actually a stamp-licking room with part-time workers assiduously licking American stamps and sticking them on envelopes that will be shipped back to the United States, thus explaining why U.S. First Class letters are so often delayed.

In Bangalore, India, the stamp-licking concession belongs to the Sir Leaks a Lot Corporation. Asked about the misnomer, Operations Manager Varnish Singhalong told a Demockracy.com reporter, “Ah, yes, that was an English error. Because we can’t spell very well in this organization. But it doesn’t matter anyway. We are stamp lickers, not a call center. Besides, ‘Sir Licks A Lot” doesn’t sound very dignified. “Sir Leaks a Lot” might at least suggest we are plumbers.”

New outsourcing initiatives in the U.S. include the exporting of obesity. US customers call up the International Lardbutt Company in Cambodia and buy them a gallon-sized Slurpee for five cents, which the foreign surrogate proceeds to slurp down by proxy and get fat.

And the American’s hunger pangs? “Hey, I suck it up,” said one happy male customer in Houston. “A little rumbling in the tummy is worth it. I slim down and I feel like I’m a patriot, exporting death by obesity to the heathen abroad. The time difference of 12 or 13 hours means the poor devil has to get up at three in the morning to suck one down, but hey, nobody put a gun to their heads forcing them to get paid slurping Slurpees in the middle of the night. I’d call that a pretty good job.”

As for Hollywood, it was only a matter of time. “Hollywood has essentially been outsourced to Bollywood, no doubt about it,” a studio executive who wished to remain anonymous said. “Bollywood makes more movies in a year than McDonald’s flips burgers, and for one-tenth the cost. By the way, are burgers still made here? Anyway, why should we pay Brad Pitt millions for his pretty face when we can give some crooner in India a couple of bucks and a pack of Marlboros to sing and dance around the script? We’ll save hundreds of millions a year that we can pay ourselves in bonuses.”

Are there any projects in the works? “Our first Indian film will be a Mumbai remake of Michael Clayton with Arjun Rampai in the Clooney role and Preity Zinta as the Tilda Swinton character,” the executive said. (The Swinton role of “Karen” has been changed to “Kali.” Kali is the name of the wife of Shiva the God of Death referred to in the original version.) A journalist who was shown pre-release clips from the famous Clayton ending reports a song-and-dance fest featuring a love triangle, angry parents and a hero who fights and defeats a plethora of gangsters, none of which has anything to do with the original plot, although some modified dialogue remains. “See, now, that’s just not the way to go here, Kali,” Rampai croons in sync with his dance steps. “You know, for someone as smart as you, you really are lost, aren’t you? I’m the easiest part of the equation, and you want to kill me? Don’t you know who I am? I’m a fixer. I’m a bagman. I fix anything from illegitimate caste-climbers to bent Maharajas, and you want to kill me? Five million rupees—that’s to forget about your lower-caste origins.” Kali tiptoes across the set, arms flailing, singing “This discussion will have to take place in another setting, oh yes, oh yes, take place in another setting!” Rampai swirls to her side and belts, “DO I LOOK LIKE I’M NEGOTIATING?”

Reactions to China’s Tiananmen Blackout: Can’t Live With Them, Can’t Live Without Them

This June fourth marked the twentieth anniversary of pro-democracy protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. These protests were violently put down by China’s government, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of (usually nonviolent) protesters and iconic photos and videos showcasing the inhumanity and intolerance of Chinese communism in the midst of the Cold War. The so-called Free World howled with outrage about China’s brutal violation of its citizens’ human rights.

While the Cold War has ended and China has become a capitalist powerhouse, China’s government has retained its iron grip. Strikingly, any acknowledgment of this week’s historic anniversary was blotted out in China (with, for legal reasons, the exception of Hong Kong where over 100,000 people gathered to mark the occasion). Any news of the event – via television, internet, radio, press, even Twitter! – was blacked out and any demonstrations commemorating the event and its victims were forbidden. And this has not been the beginning of Tiananmen Square’s erasure from public memory. Many of China’s under-20 generation know nothing about what happened there in 1989, and students do not learn anything about the incident in their classes.

Many in China and the outside world remember, however. And although world leaders and citizens spoke out this week to condemn the 1989 crackdown as well as China’s silencing recognition of the event, these words were uttered in a different context, in a different world. China and the world are so different from 1989 that these words, coming from the mouths leaders who have become increasingly friendly with China, ring somewhat hollow. For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that China “should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal.” To which Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang responded, “We urge the U.S. to put aside its political prejudice and correct its wrongdoing and refrain from disrupting or undermining bilateral relations.” It is hard to see Clinton’s statement as anything besides political rhetoric. This is the same Secretary of State who visited China just this spring and refused to discuss “marginal issues” like human rights in favor of issues like the economic crisis and environmental concerns.

I’m sure that Clinton, Obama, and other outspoken world leaders and heads of state are uncomfortable with China’s lackluster human rights record. Who isn’t? But now China doesn’t fit quite so easily into the box that it used to. It was easy to condemn its human rights shortcomings and to demonize China as a godless commie dictatorship when it didn’t supply most of the cheap consumer products that we are so addicted to in the US. Or when it didn’t finance much of our ballooning national debt. It is still easy to condemn Burma’s similar 1988 and 2007 pro-democracy crackdowns because Burma still remains politically and economically insignificant on the global stage. China now occupies center stage.

These days, words condemning China are generally just that – words. Discomfort with China’s disregard for democratic values and basic human rights will not stop our businesses – or US consumers – from buying cheap goods from China. It will not stop businesses from moving factories there. Nor will it stop the US government from stepping up diplomatic and economic engagement with China, an important rising global superpower. Barring a shockingly egregious misstep on the part of China’s political leadership, relatively small issues like the Tiananmen Square blackout and even bigger concerns such as Chinese policies regarding Tibet, the rest of the world will be eager to be a part of China’s stunning rise.

Really, China is a new manifestation of an old dilemma for US foreign policy. We (and here I use “we” to stand in for the US government) claim to stand for democracy, freedom, liberty, human rights, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc., etc. And sometimes we do, but often we don’t. We support a Saudi monarchy/dictatorship because they ensure our access to oil. We supported the mujahaddin in Soviet-era Afghanistan because it was anti-Soviet. Then we supported a military dictatorship in Pakistan because it was anti-mujahaddin (kind of). We supported South Africa’s apartheid government for years. We armed, trained, and funded death squads and dictatorships throughout Central and South America during the 1980s and beyond (and before too). This list goes on.

China is just the latest challenge to applying lofty American ideals to the nitty-gritty of national foreign policy and bilateral relations. Perhaps one day, China’s government will give in (willingly or unwillingly) to global and domestic concerns about human rights and political freedom in China. It doesn’t look likely to happen soon however. And neither the US nor other countries have the political will to really stand up to China on such issues. In fact, conflicts with China over such issues could very well undermine the material benefits we enjoy thanks to our growing relationship with China. And, in all honesty, the compromises that the US and China are compelled to make to maintain a working, if imperfect, relationship are certainly better than another Cold War. Diplomacy and relationship building are always more complex, muddled, and morally ambiguous than outright hostility.