Rebecca McKimmon (left, from her blog) took a shot at Cisco's China policy recently, confirming through a spokesman that the company does indeed cooperate with the government.

This is not news. So does nearly every other U.S. tech company.

The U.S. policy is, and has been, full engagement with China. This has already hurt Cisco. Back in the 1990s one of the prices for getting into the market was to share technology. Cisco did so, and a few years later Huawei, a Chinese company, had routers and bridges very similar to Cisco's old stuff, along with most of the Asian market (thanks to lower prices).

McKimmon's point now is that China Cisco is cooperating with the worst excesses of the China government, which is seeking to have both the world's best Internet technology and full control over what people do with it.

That is a good point, but I don't think you don't go after Cisco to make it.

You ask the U.S. government, is your policy to enable full cooperation with the Chinese tyranny? And if you don't like the answer you work to change it.

Public companies should not be expected to make or enforce American foreign policy, or trade policy. The buck stops with the government, and in a democracy it stops with us.

There is precedent for all this. IBM cooperated with Hitler, selling the punch card equipment that enabled the Holocaust. At some point it was up to the U.S. government to halt that cooperation, but the government never did. Is this IBM's fault entirely? No, I'm afraid it's not.

There is a myth perpetrated by free trade advocates that trade should be values-free, that anything which gets in the way of trade is wrong, that corporations should leave their consciences at the door. That's the problem, the principle behind the policy. When those who practice absolute free trade go against countries that practice strategic free trade they get their heads handed to them.

If we're to treat China as an adversary rather than a trading partner, fine. But that's not Cisco's job.

It's ours.