14 ms·

Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

337 points by codechicago277 5y ago

kwere 5y ago
as a powerless person i shared the news on multiple social media and engaged wih the algos to boost it
dazsnow 5y ago
This simply makes good business sense. I would wager they would also refuse to host an Al Qaeda support conference.
- crobertsbmw 5y ago
  I always thought of Marriott as being an ethical company. When the ethics and good business diverge is where things are difficult.
  - npteljes 5y ago
    Yes, the level of sacrifice is what shows how much intent and merit is behind a standpoint.
jaywalk 5y ago
I wonder how long it took to come up with the phrase "political neutrality" to explain this, seeing as it's literally the exact opposite of that. To be fair to Marriott, they are saying it was a local hotel management decision and not a corporate decision, and that their corporate policies would not have restricted this conference. Remember, Marriott doesn't actually own or control (the vast majority of) hotels with their name on it.
- poszlem 5y ago
  I have no idea why you are being downvoted, since political neutrality for a hotel should mean - we host everybody no matter their politics. They are doing the opposite of what they claimed to be doing.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    I can only imagine that it was the second part of my comment that people take issue with. It's completely conceivable that local hotel management made the decision on their own with no input from Marriott, so I think that should absolutely be called out.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  It's definitely one of those quirks of the English Language that enables Doublespeak.
betwixthewires 5y ago
The west has abandoned these people for a buck, and in the process we have abandoned our soul. We should all feel great shame for this.
jbirer 5y ago
Pragmatically, this is bad PR for Marriott. It gives an opening to get "cancelled" and smeared over this, as the Uyghur problem is very hot right now.
- gruez 5y ago
  I've heard of individuals successfully getting "cancelled", but a multinational company? I doubt it.
throwoutway 5y ago
Actively refusing is the least passive/neutral thing they could have done. Now they’ve obligated themselves (morally) to refuse Chinese political meeting bookings as well, but we won’t see that happen Opinion: Due to Chinese human rights abuses AND the threats against American business, the US should not attend the upcoming Beijing Olympics
- crobertsbmw 5y ago
  Athletes from the USA. I like it.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Opinion: Due to Chinese human rights abuses AND the threats against American business, the US should not attend the upcoming Beijing Olympics In a vacuum, I fully agree with protesting China to the fullest extent; however, if scientists are to be believed, these things (human rights, trade, etc violations) trifle in comparison to the climate change threat, and China has all of humanity by the throat here. We need a cooperative relationship with China for the coming decades, since we can't just move our manufacturing (and thus its pollution) out of China overnight and the climate can't wait for a more gradual approach. EDIT: Looks like I struck a nerve. Folks, believe me, I don't like the idea of letting China off the hook in the short term for its violations, but if anyone has ideas for holding China accountable while also getting it to meet emissions targets, I'm all ears.
  - foobar2021 5y ago
    What’s that quote? It’s something along the lines of “the way to get good people to accept or do evil things is to convince them that the end justifies the means”
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      I think that's a good general principle, but I think the magnitude of the climate change threat and its timelines are exceptional. This principle doesn't generalize to it in my mind, but I'd be happy to hear how we can apply this principle and save the planet.
julianlam 5y ago
Marriott decided to avoid poking the bear by stepping on the proverbial mouse. From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense, but moralistically, it does not. It is very disappointing that even I, as an Asian individual living in Canada, am disincentivized from expressing even my own opinion on China and HK/Taiwan, etc. due to the perceived threat of "consequences" from a government whose reach I cannot easily quantify.
- simonh 5y ago
  The management of this Marriot Hotel did yes, but it's encouraging that Marriot's corporate management immediately overruled the Hotel on this and apologised to the group. Marriot do have a spotty history on such issues, but I think we should commend them when they attempt to do the right thing. Yes this shouldn't have happened in the first place, but given that it did they do seem to be doing their best to make it right. I'm not going to post this reply to every single other comment ragging on 'Marriot' here, which is all but one top level comment, but come on people. Read the article. Oh, and now that top level comment that was actually informed and provided useful context is getting downvoted into oblivion. We can do better than this.
  - majou 5y ago
    Thanks. It's easy to give into a pessimistic spiral; I always wanted these kinds of issues to become well-known, but it seems like the response is often some kind of "yeah, figures.", foregoing the conclusion. In a similar, but lesser vein; John Cena's apology video didn't once mention what he was apologizing for, and still got lots of flak from mainland Chinese because of that. It was plain to everyone involved what the video was aimed to do, but it's the kind of fence-walking that we miss.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Side note for those who don't know: most Marriott properties are Marriott-managed, not Marriott-owned. It usually doesn't matter, but on policy questions there can sometimes be some friction between owner preferences & Marriott corporate preferences. Usually this is over things like "Your food and service isn't up to Marriott quality, because you're under investing." But I imagine politics is also a sensitive point too. Regardless, Marriott corporate usually wins, as a hotel-without-the-Marriott-name prints less money. Edit: Although in this instance, from the scarce details, it sounds like it was divergence from corporate policy by local management. Which, if you're putting management teams in ~7,900 properties, is probably a thing that happens. Basic summary: https://marketrealist.com/2014/10/why-marriotts-hotels-have-specific-ownership-structure/ https://marketrealist.com/2014/10/why-marriotts-hotels-have-... Marriott Intl page for franchisees: https://hotel-development.marriott.com/ https://hotel-development.marriott.com/
323 5y ago
More evidence that China's arm reaches quite far, including inside the West. Because China is willing to play dirty. If they hosted it, they would see Marriot executives arrested for "corruption", or Marriot hotels closed for "environmental damage" or similar things, like how they arrested two innocent Canadians as retaliation for the Canadian arrest of the Huawei executive. This is why Nike, NBA, Hollywood, ... bow down to China, including inside the US, they know they will be crushed if they don't.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  I'm not a fan of China myself, but there's some evidence[1] that the two Canadians arrested were, in fact, spies. Personally, I'm not sure what to think. But tweets like this from CSIS[2] are certainly suggestive when viewed in a certain light. [1] https://canadianpatriot.org/2021/09/29/michael-kovrig-and-spavor-are-spies-despite-obfuscations-of-canadas-mainstream-media/ https://canadianpatriot.org/2021/09/29/michael-kovrig-and-sp... [2] https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1441576564374769665 https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1441576564374769665
  - 323 5y ago
    Article written by: > Aidan Jonah is the Editor-in-Chief of The Canada Files, a socialist, anti-imperialist news site founded in 2019. He has written about Canadian imperialism, federal politics, and left-wing resistance to colonialism across the world. Site mission: > With the emergence of China’s New Silk Road (One Belt and One Road Initiative) as a force for global progress, poverty eradication, and peace, Canada has been confronted with an existential choice: Either continue to abide by the rule of monetarism, post-industrialism and war which have become signature features of the Anglo-American system dominant since World War two and run through the City of London and Wall Street, or embark upon a new mission of “win-win cooperation”, respect for the sovereignty of each nation while working in harmony with a community of share interest vectored around long term goals, great infrastructure programs and scientific discovery. This latter system is empowered by the force of new institutions such as the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Eurasian Economic Union. New credit generating institutions have been created to advance the expanded New Silk Road vision have come online such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the New Development Bank and the Silk Road Investment Fund to name a few. Prasing Donald Trump approach to Russian and China: > European nations are now deliberating whether they should continue to sit in the failed Euro cage, or embark on this project which openly welcomes all sovereign countries as partners in development. Donald Trump’s United States, having broken with the Neo-Conservative paradigm of war with China and Russia, also increasingly moves towards a new collaborative relationship with Eurasia and the New Silk Road. The question is what will Canada do in the face of this historic opportunity?
devnull3 5y ago
I think US (not just govt but as a nation) has lost the stomach to put up a fight. I would add developed Western democracies in general.
- baybal2 5y ago
  Not US as a nation, but US elites, some of whom developed rather ghastly fascist sympathies, if not tendencies. They drank the China koolaid. I will refer to a very insightful description of the state they are in by api (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=api https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=api,) I read yesterday https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29267217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29267217 *> I consider Singapore to be the most dangerous dystopia in the world. > It's not even close to the worst place to live. That's not the point. > The thing that makes it the worst is that it is superficially desirable. It's like refined sugar, a poison that rots your teeth and causes dozens of health problems but tastes fantastic and is marketed heavily to children. > Only a lunatic or an idiot would want to emulate North Korea but many sane intelligent and well-meaning people want to emulate Singapore. That's what makes it so horrible. It's a shining beacon of totalitarianism that advertises that wonderful things can be purchased at the cost of human rights. > I would rather live, pragmatically, in Singapore than many other countries, but if I were there I'd be fully aware that it's a road to hell.
xorcist 5y ago
Calling something a "policical issue" is itself political. It's like not wanting to acknowledge climate change because of "neutrality". There is no clearer way to broadcast a political opinion. Marrott has taken a stance here, just not the respecting civil rights.
- poszlem 5y ago
  Calling something a political issue is not political but factual. I think they absolutely should host that conference, but let's not do the tired "everything is political" thing again lest we end up with the: “You talk to older people and they’re like, ‘Dude we sell tomato sauce, we don’t sell politics," one millennial entrepreneur told me. “Then you have younger people being like, ‘These are political tomatoes. This is political tomato sauce.'" https://twitter.com/emmabgo/status/1453720130412707849 https://twitter.com/emmabgo/status/1453720130412707849 Everything is political and nothing is political. Only the dose makes something political.
enriquto 5y ago
Marriott should receive the wrath of concerned European citizens, then. Make them even more afraid of us than of China. Burn those shitty hotels down!
killjoywashere 5y ago
"Only Nixon could open China". Yes, let's send pallets of cash to a communist country in exchange for plastic toys and other end-manufactured goods. This was exploitation of global inequality was only ever going to help the billionaires.
- rib3ye 5y ago
  Amazing how quickly people forgot about the existence of the Cold War.
  - hyperbovine 5y ago
    The cold war was ongoing at the time Nixon did this... just getting going really.
  - fithisux 5y ago
    the cureent pandemic does not allow me to forget. It is for real and it gets worse like cancer that is not treated.
djrogers 5y ago
Amazing how much hay can be made by dropping a single word: “A Marriott refused” vs “Marriott refused”. The text of the article makes it clear that there is no evidence that Marriott as a corporate entity had anything to do with this, ans a corporate spokesperson actually denied that this was policy and as much as said that the local hotel manager screwed up.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  There's just as much evidence in the article that it was Marriott as a whole refusing. The original rejection email specifically said: "We consulted the whole matter with our corporate management" > "Thank you very much for your visit today. Unfortunately, I have to inform you that we are not able to offer the premises. We consulted the whole matter with our corporate management. For reasons of political neutrality, we cannot offer events of this type with a political theme. Thank you once again for your time and understanding."
  - meragrin_ 5y ago
    Was that hotel franchised or owned by Marriott? If it was franchised, the "corporate management" is obviously not Marriott.
    - hugh-avherald 5y ago
      My read of that quote is that even if it's a franchised hotel, the franchisee had been told by Marriott Hotels & Resorts, not that it had consulted internally. It does not make much sense for a single hotel to be so worried about wider damage to the brand.
      - meragrin_ 5y ago
        > My read of that quote is that even if it's a franchised hotel, the franchisee had been told by Marriott Hotels & Resorts, not that it had consulted internally. If they meant Marriott, I would think they would explicitly say Marriott since it gives them an out for the blame. If it wasn't a Marriott decision, it would be dumb to explicitly say Marriott but they know they have a good chance to dodge blame with just the generic "corporate management". > It does not make much sense for a single hotel to be so worried about wider damage to the brand. It does make sense if the franchisee has multiple hotels with some of them being in China. Don't know if that is the case, but it could be.
unclebucknasty 5y ago
Getting scary how much our corporations are consistently afraid to offend China. A reminder that's it's not a good idea to outsource the guardianship of our democracy, ideas about justice, and civil well-being to corporations. That's a role for government. But, where is the HN free speech brigade? Do they not see a connection here?
whatever1 5y ago
People are voting with their cash, and we love companies that make chinese products. For people the only thing that matters is the price tag. And companies know that, this is why they poured trillions of dollars of investments in an authoritarian regime. They could had invested in any democratic country that respects human rights with labor and environmental laws, but it would not give them the best bang for their buck. Companies are ran as Monarchies anyway, so authoritative regimes seem better fit for them.
jollybean 5y ago
Collectively, the West is much more powerful than China, but nobody in the West is nearly as powerful as Xi. In that fragmentation, he can gain considerable leverage like this, without even having to say a word. One thing that might help even larger businesses is for government to pass legislation banning this kind of activity, i.e. making judgements on who can attend or not, or at very least, passing it off to the local officials. That way, Marriott can say 'Sorry Xi, our hands our tied, we had to let them have their conference, take it up with Biden or Merkel'.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  > nobody in the West is nearly as powerful as Xi. Trump was. The CCP called an emergency meeting after each of his 2020 speeches. He single-handedly reversed 50 years of US appeasement.
scilro 5y ago
The World Uyghur Congress is not some politically neutral group made up of concerned immigrants and activists. It has US state backing and intelligence connections. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/05/world-uyghur-congress-us-far-right-regime-change-network-fall-china/ https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/05/world-uyghur-congress-us-... Whether you are convinced by the allegations they have made against the Chinese government or not, it's not inaccurate to call it a political entity. Its name is a bit misleading and makes one think that it represents members of this ethnic group around the world.
- Buttersite 5y ago
  Lol linking to the gray zone. Fascist punk fuck off.
cm2012 5y ago
The USA should make it illegal to kowtow to China like this. The details of how this law could be structured can be debated, but there has to be a way. Let companies choose between having US and Chinese business instead of always taking the easy way out.
- criddell 5y ago
  I don't think the constitution would allow it. Kowtowing is an expression of something so I would guess it's covered by the 1st amendment.
  - javert 5y ago
    The question is what the Supreme Court would allow, not what the Constitution would allow. They are often not the same. The Court has engaged in a lot of spurious reasoning and wishful thinking over the centuries, and continues to do so.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    I would agree that the Constitution would probably not allow it to be banned, but I would say there are many things not protected by the 1st amendment that could be considered an expression of something. Treason Obscenity Libel Slander Certain threats Incitement Hiring a hit man
    - criddell 5y ago
      For sure. I didn't mean to imply freedom of speech is absolute.
Cromation 5y ago
I keep seeing folks acting like Marriott is afraid to go against China because they would crush them, but I see it just as capitalism at work. When you have to make the most profit all of the time or SHAREHOLDERS will shut you down then you have to bow to any large market that puts up a complaint.
flerovium 5y ago
This will continue to happen until the US government backs not bending to foreign actors, as it did with the ridiculous "Interview" movie. The US handled it well: the govt stood behind theaters who might have otherwise stopped screenings, and local police were outside theaters. Was it worth it for the entertainment? No. It was worth it for a political message.
ranger_danger 5y ago
Wouldn't neutrality mean they accept anyone regardless of politics/race/etc.?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tiahura 5y ago
This comes after Marriott Cena appologized to China for listing Taiwan as a country on its website. https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/companies/marriott-china-website-app-blocked-tibet-taiwan/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/companies/marriott-chi...
flerovium 5y ago
> Also in 2018, Marriott fired a U.S.-based employee who used a company Twitter account to like a post by a pro-Tibet group. This is far more significant than the headline.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  Feels like misuse of the company Twitter account (i.e. the official voice of that company on Twitter) for liking anything it shouldn't be liking is firable. "Why is Marriot liking Kanye's tweet?", "Why is Marriot liking someone talking about Joe Biden's infrastructure bill?". "Why is Marriot liking a pro-BLM tweet?" - although that last one would lead to so much pushback...
  - flerovium 5y ago
    As someone who manages social media accounts, liking a post can happen without much thought. Marriot could simply have unliked the post. The firing was symbolic and game theoretic. The point is that now everyone who speaks in the public sphere will need to know, China cares about X, Y, Z. It's about brainshare.
fithisux 5y ago
This kind of behavior will throw us to a nuclear war in some decades from now. Why tolerate a totalitarian regime?
qwertyuiop_ 5y ago
I mentioned this on the other thread yesterday. This is slow and steady retreat in the face of ever growing threat from a totalitarian regime that is hell bent on world domination. People in the country boycott brands and protest at the drop of a pin but I’m yet to see a concerted effort by peopleto show the brands that this is not okay. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29273640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29273640
- mikem170 5y ago
  > hell bent on world domination Is there any evidence for this? I hear it often enough. We used to say that about Russia, but when the cold war was over and everyone got to look at the historical documents it turns out that they were terrified of the U.S., more so than the other way around, and not as much of a threat as we made them out to be. Historically China has not been as adventurous as Europeans in this regard, although of course they have exerted a lot of influence in their region before the Europeans dominated them, and later the Japanese. They are dominating minorities in Tibet and the Uyghars, similar to how we've screwed native americans and black folks. It seems like they have been expanding their influence in Africa lately. Or maybe I don't follow what is meant by domination here. Maybe you mean the way the U.S. dominates the worlds oceans and trade? I assume that China wants to get out from under that, along with a number of other countries. Nobody likes being dominated by others. I assume they, and others, have been saying the same about us.
totalZero 5y ago
Marriott has a lot of hotels in the third world, and Chinese diplomats and delegates pay money to stay with them. I find it unsurprising that Marriott chooses its business interests rather than taking a political stand.
- beaunative 5y ago
  that's capitalism.
civilizationUp 5y ago
I don’t see any problem from Marriott. A business is smart to stay away from politics(like Elon Musk on abortion issue), especially when it is difficult to judge who is representing justice(both have bad reputation among certain group of people).
TimTheTinker 5y ago
My favorite part: > Prague mayor Zdeněk Hřib, who attended the conference, said in response: "I hear that China is unhappy about this conference being held here in Prague. Well, I am unhappy there's a country in 2021 that has concentration camps." I don't know why it's so politically incorrect to call out the Chinese communist party on its human rights abuses. It's clearly a highly authoritarian, abusive country -- one of the major blots on the human race at the present time, along with North Korea. We ought to be brave and speak the truth about it.
dirtyid 5y ago
Santizing discussion around "political neutrality" when PRC considers WUC a seccessionist and terrorist group with connection to ETIM who has history of terrorist attacks in PRC. I find it amusing how the article compares Marriot hosting Pompeo to WUC, again PRC's equivalent of Taliban. More on the nose than one would think. Looks like crisis management by Marriot throwing the local franchise under bus though. Wonder if WUC will take them up on the offer for other conferences.
burgerzzz 5y ago
I worked at Nike and we had the same thing occur. Basically change any and all references of Taiwan to “Taiwan - A province of China” or they threatened to shut down Nike.com in China. Everything else stopped until we made the change. I thought it was weird and showed how much influence China had over even a huge American company and brand. I quit three months ago, have vowed that I will never work for a corporation that chooses greed over people again.

kwere 5y ago

as a powerless person i shared the news on multiple social media and engaged wih the algos to boost it

dazsnow 5y ago

This simply makes good business sense. I would wager they would also refuse to host an Al Qaeda support conference.

crobertsbmw 5y ago
I always thought of Marriott as being an ethical company. When the ethics and good business diverge is where things are difficult.
- npteljes 5y ago
  Yes, the level of sacrifice is what shows how much intent and merit is behind a standpoint.

jaywalk 5y ago

I wonder how long it took to come up with the phrase "political neutrality" to explain this, seeing as it's literally the exact opposite of that. To be fair to Marriott, they are saying it was a local hotel management decision and not a corporate decision, and that their corporate policies would not have restricted this conference. Remember, Marriott doesn't actually own or control (the vast majority of) hotels with their name on it.

poszlem 5y ago
I have no idea why you are being downvoted, since political neutrality for a hotel should mean - we host everybody no matter their politics. They are doing the opposite of what they claimed to be doing.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  I can only imagine that it was the second part of my comment that people take issue with. It's completely conceivable that local hotel management made the decision on their own with no input from Marriott, so I think that should absolutely be called out.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
It's definitely one of those quirks of the English Language that enables Doublespeak.

betwixthewires 5y ago

The west has abandoned these people for a buck, and in the process we have abandoned our soul. We should all feel great shame for this.

jbirer 5y ago

Pragmatically, this is bad PR for Marriott. It gives an opening to get "cancelled" and smeared over this, as the Uyghur problem is very hot right now.

gruez 5y ago
I've heard of individuals successfully getting "cancelled", but a multinational company? I doubt it.

throwoutway 5y ago

Actively refusing is the least passive/neutral thing they could have done. Now they’ve obligated themselves (morally) to refuse Chinese political meeting bookings as well, but we won’t see that happen Opinion: Due to Chinese human rights abuses AND the threats against American business, the US should not attend the upcoming Beijing Olympics

crobertsbmw 5y ago
Athletes from the USA. I like it.
throwaway894345 5y ago
> Opinion: Due to Chinese human rights abuses AND the threats against American business, the US should not attend the upcoming Beijing Olympics In a vacuum, I fully agree with protesting China to the fullest extent; however, if scientists are to be believed, these things (human rights, trade, etc violations) trifle in comparison to the climate change threat, and China has all of humanity by the throat here. We need a cooperative relationship with China for the coming decades, since we can't just move our manufacturing (and thus its pollution) out of China overnight and the climate can't wait for a more gradual approach. EDIT: Looks like I struck a nerve. Folks, believe me, I don't like the idea of letting China off the hook in the short term for its violations, but if anyone has ideas for holding China accountable while also getting it to meet emissions targets, I'm all ears.
- foobar2021 5y ago
  What’s that quote? It’s something along the lines of “the way to get good people to accept or do evil things is to convince them that the end justifies the means”
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I think that's a good general principle, but I think the magnitude of the climate change threat and its timelines are exceptional. This principle doesn't generalize to it in my mind, but I'd be happy to hear how we can apply this principle and save the planet.

julianlam 5y ago

Marriott decided to avoid poking the bear by stepping on the proverbial mouse. From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense, but moralistically, it does not. It is very disappointing that even I, as an Asian individual living in Canada, am disincentivized from expressing even my own opinion on China and HK/Taiwan, etc. due to the perceived threat of "consequences" from a government whose reach I cannot easily quantify.

simonh 5y ago
The management of this Marriot Hotel did yes, but it's encouraging that Marriot's corporate management immediately overruled the Hotel on this and apologised to the group. Marriot do have a spotty history on such issues, but I think we should commend them when they attempt to do the right thing. Yes this shouldn't have happened in the first place, but given that it did they do seem to be doing their best to make it right. I'm not going to post this reply to every single other comment ragging on 'Marriot' here, which is all but one top level comment, but come on people. Read the article. Oh, and now that top level comment that was actually informed and provided useful context is getting downvoted into oblivion. We can do better than this.
- majou 5y ago
  Thanks. It's easy to give into a pessimistic spiral; I always wanted these kinds of issues to become well-known, but it seems like the response is often some kind of "yeah, figures.", foregoing the conclusion. In a similar, but lesser vein; John Cena's apology video didn't once mention what he was apologizing for, and still got lots of flak from mainland Chinese because of that. It was plain to everyone involved what the video was aimed to do, but it's the kind of fence-walking that we miss.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Side note for those who don't know: most Marriott properties are Marriott-managed, not Marriott-owned. It usually doesn't matter, but on policy questions there can sometimes be some friction between owner preferences & Marriott corporate preferences. Usually this is over things like "Your food and service isn't up to Marriott quality, because you're under investing." But I imagine politics is also a sensitive point too. Regardless, Marriott corporate usually wins, as a hotel-without-the-Marriott-name prints less money. Edit: Although in this instance, from the scarce details, it sounds like it was divergence from corporate policy by local management. Which, if you're putting management teams in ~7,900 properties, is probably a thing that happens. Basic summary: https://marketrealist.com/2014/10/why-marriotts-hotels-have-specific-ownership-structure/ https://marketrealist.com/2014/10/why-marriotts-hotels-have-... Marriott Intl page for franchisees: https://hotel-development.marriott.com/ https://hotel-development.marriott.com/

323 5y ago

More evidence that China's arm reaches quite far, including inside the West. Because China is willing to play dirty. If they hosted it, they would see Marriot executives arrested for "corruption", or Marriot hotels closed for "environmental damage" or similar things, like how they arrested two innocent Canadians as retaliation for the Canadian arrest of the Huawei executive. This is why Nike, NBA, Hollywood, ... bow down to China, including inside the US, they know they will be crushed if they don't.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AlexandrB 5y ago
I'm not a fan of China myself, but there's some evidence[1] that the two Canadians arrested were, in fact, spies. Personally, I'm not sure what to think. But tweets like this from CSIS[2] are certainly suggestive when viewed in a certain light. [1] https://canadianpatriot.org/2021/09/29/michael-kovrig-and-spavor-are-spies-despite-obfuscations-of-canadas-mainstream-media/ https://canadianpatriot.org/2021/09/29/michael-kovrig-and-sp... [2] https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1441576564374769665 https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1441576564374769665
- 323 5y ago
  Article written by: > Aidan Jonah is the Editor-in-Chief of The Canada Files, a socialist, anti-imperialist news site founded in 2019. He has written about Canadian imperialism, federal politics, and left-wing resistance to colonialism across the world. Site mission: > With the emergence of China’s New Silk Road (One Belt and One Road Initiative) as a force for global progress, poverty eradication, and peace, Canada has been confronted with an existential choice: Either continue to abide by the rule of monetarism, post-industrialism and war which have become signature features of the Anglo-American system dominant since World War two and run through the City of London and Wall Street, or embark upon a new mission of “win-win cooperation”, respect for the sovereignty of each nation while working in harmony with a community of share interest vectored around long term goals, great infrastructure programs and scientific discovery. This latter system is empowered by the force of new institutions such as the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Eurasian Economic Union. New credit generating institutions have been created to advance the expanded New Silk Road vision have come online such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the New Development Bank and the Silk Road Investment Fund to name a few. Prasing Donald Trump approach to Russian and China: > European nations are now deliberating whether they should continue to sit in the failed Euro cage, or embark on this project which openly welcomes all sovereign countries as partners in development. Donald Trump’s United States, having broken with the Neo-Conservative paradigm of war with China and Russia, also increasingly moves towards a new collaborative relationship with Eurasia and the New Silk Road. The question is what will Canada do in the face of this historic opportunity?

devnull3 5y ago

I think US (not just govt but as a nation) has lost the stomach to put up a fight. I would add developed Western democracies in general.

baybal2 5y ago
Not US as a nation, but US elites, some of whom developed rather ghastly fascist sympathies, if not tendencies. They drank the China koolaid. I will refer to a very insightful description of the state they are in by api (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=api https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=api,) I read yesterday https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29267217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29267217 *> I consider Singapore to be the most dangerous dystopia in the world. > It's not even close to the worst place to live. That's not the point. > The thing that makes it the worst is that it is superficially desirable. It's like refined sugar, a poison that rots your teeth and causes dozens of health problems but tastes fantastic and is marketed heavily to children. > Only a lunatic or an idiot would want to emulate North Korea but many sane intelligent and well-meaning people want to emulate Singapore. That's what makes it so horrible. It's a shining beacon of totalitarianism that advertises that wonderful things can be purchased at the cost of human rights. > I would rather live, pragmatically, in Singapore than many other countries, but if I were there I'd be fully aware that it's a road to hell.

xorcist 5y ago

Calling something a "policical issue" is itself political. It's like not wanting to acknowledge climate change because of "neutrality". There is no clearer way to broadcast a political opinion. Marrott has taken a stance here, just not the respecting civil rights.

poszlem 5y ago
Calling something a political issue is not political but factual. I think they absolutely should host that conference, but let's not do the tired "everything is political" thing again lest we end up with the: “You talk to older people and they’re like, ‘Dude we sell tomato sauce, we don’t sell politics," one millennial entrepreneur told me. “Then you have younger people being like, ‘These are political tomatoes. This is political tomato sauce.'" https://twitter.com/emmabgo/status/1453720130412707849 https://twitter.com/emmabgo/status/1453720130412707849 Everything is political and nothing is political. Only the dose makes something political.

enriquto 5y ago

Marriott should receive the wrath of concerned European citizens, then. Make them even more afraid of us than of China. Burn those shitty hotels down!

killjoywashere 5y ago

"Only Nixon could open China". Yes, let's send pallets of cash to a communist country in exchange for plastic toys and other end-manufactured goods. This was exploitation of global inequality was only ever going to help the billionaires.

rib3ye 5y ago
Amazing how quickly people forgot about the existence of the Cold War.
- hyperbovine 5y ago
  The cold war was ongoing at the time Nixon did this... just getting going really.
- fithisux 5y ago
  the cureent pandemic does not allow me to forget. It is for real and it gets worse like cancer that is not treated.

djrogers 5y ago

Amazing how much hay can be made by dropping a single word: “A Marriott refused” vs “Marriott refused”. The text of the article makes it clear that there is no evidence that Marriott as a corporate entity had anything to do with this, ans a corporate spokesperson actually denied that this was policy and as much as said that the local hotel manager screwed up.

ncallaway 5y ago
There's just as much evidence in the article that it was Marriott as a whole refusing. The original rejection email specifically said: "We consulted the whole matter with our corporate management" > "Thank you very much for your visit today. Unfortunately, I have to inform you that we are not able to offer the premises. We consulted the whole matter with our corporate management. For reasons of political neutrality, we cannot offer events of this type with a political theme. Thank you once again for your time and understanding."
- meragrin_ 5y ago
  Was that hotel franchised or owned by Marriott? If it was franchised, the "corporate management" is obviously not Marriott.
  - hugh-avherald 5y ago
    My read of that quote is that even if it's a franchised hotel, the franchisee had been told by Marriott Hotels & Resorts, not that it had consulted internally. It does not make much sense for a single hotel to be so worried about wider damage to the brand.
    - meragrin_ 5y ago
      > My read of that quote is that even if it's a franchised hotel, the franchisee had been told by Marriott Hotels & Resorts, not that it had consulted internally. If they meant Marriott, I would think they would explicitly say Marriott since it gives them an out for the blame. If it wasn't a Marriott decision, it would be dumb to explicitly say Marriott but they know they have a good chance to dodge blame with just the generic "corporate management". > It does not make much sense for a single hotel to be so worried about wider damage to the brand. It does make sense if the franchisee has multiple hotels with some of them being in China. Don't know if that is the case, but it could be.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

Getting scary how much our corporations are consistently afraid to offend China. A reminder that's it's not a good idea to outsource the guardianship of our democracy, ideas about justice, and civil well-being to corporations. That's a role for government. But, where is the HN free speech brigade? Do they not see a connection here?

whatever1 5y ago

People are voting with their cash, and we love companies that make chinese products. For people the only thing that matters is the price tag. And companies know that, this is why they poured trillions of dollars of investments in an authoritarian regime. They could had invested in any democratic country that respects human rights with labor and environmental laws, but it would not give them the best bang for their buck. Companies are ran as Monarchies anyway, so authoritative regimes seem better fit for them.

jollybean 5y ago

Collectively, the West is much more powerful than China, but nobody in the West is nearly as powerful as Xi. In that fragmentation, he can gain considerable leverage like this, without even having to say a word. One thing that might help even larger businesses is for government to pass legislation banning this kind of activity, i.e. making judgements on who can attend or not, or at very least, passing it off to the local officials. That way, Marriott can say 'Sorry Xi, our hands our tied, we had to let them have their conference, take it up with Biden or Merkel'.

redis_mlc 5y ago
> nobody in the West is nearly as powerful as Xi. Trump was. The CCP called an emergency meeting after each of his 2020 speeches. He single-handedly reversed 50 years of US appeasement.

scilro 5y ago

The World Uyghur Congress is not some politically neutral group made up of concerned immigrants and activists. It has US state backing and intelligence connections. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/05/world-uyghur-congress-us-far-right-regime-change-network-fall-china/ https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/05/world-uyghur-congress-us-... Whether you are convinced by the allegations they have made against the Chinese government or not, it's not inaccurate to call it a political entity. Its name is a bit misleading and makes one think that it represents members of this ethnic group around the world.

Buttersite 5y ago
Lol linking to the gray zone. Fascist punk fuck off.

cm2012 5y ago

The USA should make it illegal to kowtow to China like this. The details of how this law could be structured can be debated, but there has to be a way. Let companies choose between having US and Chinese business instead of always taking the easy way out.

criddell 5y ago
I don't think the constitution would allow it. Kowtowing is an expression of something so I would guess it's covered by the 1st amendment.
- javert 5y ago
  The question is what the Supreme Court would allow, not what the Constitution would allow. They are often not the same. The Court has engaged in a lot of spurious reasoning and wishful thinking over the centuries, and continues to do so.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  I would agree that the Constitution would probably not allow it to be banned, but I would say there are many things not protected by the 1st amendment that could be considered an expression of something. Treason Obscenity Libel Slander Certain threats Incitement Hiring a hit man
  - criddell 5y ago
    For sure. I didn't mean to imply freedom of speech is absolute.

Cromation 5y ago

I keep seeing folks acting like Marriott is afraid to go against China because they would crush them, but I see it just as capitalism at work. When you have to make the most profit all of the time or SHAREHOLDERS will shut you down then you have to bow to any large market that puts up a complaint.

flerovium 5y ago

This will continue to happen until the US government backs not bending to foreign actors, as it did with the ridiculous "Interview" movie. The US handled it well: the govt stood behind theaters who might have otherwise stopped screenings, and local police were outside theaters. Was it worth it for the entertainment? No. It was worth it for a political message.

ranger_danger 5y ago

Wouldn't neutrality mean they accept anyone regardless of politics/race/etc.?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tiahura 5y ago

This comes after Marriott Cena appologized to China for listing Taiwan as a country on its website. https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/companies/marriott-china-website-app-blocked-tibet-taiwan/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/companies/marriott-chi...

flerovium 5y ago

> Also in 2018, Marriott fired a U.S.-based employee who used a company Twitter account to like a post by a pro-Tibet group. This is far more significant than the headline.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
Feels like misuse of the company Twitter account (i.e. the official voice of that company on Twitter) for liking anything it shouldn't be liking is firable. "Why is Marriot liking Kanye's tweet?", "Why is Marriot liking someone talking about Joe Biden's infrastructure bill?". "Why is Marriot liking a pro-BLM tweet?" - although that last one would lead to so much pushback...
- flerovium 5y ago
  As someone who manages social media accounts, liking a post can happen without much thought. Marriot could simply have unliked the post. The firing was symbolic and game theoretic. The point is that now everyone who speaks in the public sphere will need to know, China cares about X, Y, Z. It's about brainshare.

fithisux 5y ago

This kind of behavior will throw us to a nuclear war in some decades from now. Why tolerate a totalitarian regime?

qwertyuiop_ 5y ago

I mentioned this on the other thread yesterday. This is slow and steady retreat in the face of ever growing threat from a totalitarian regime that is hell bent on world domination. People in the country boycott brands and protest at the drop of a pin but I’m yet to see a concerted effort by peopleto show the brands that this is not okay. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29273640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29273640

mikem170 5y ago
> hell bent on world domination Is there any evidence for this? I hear it often enough. We used to say that about Russia, but when the cold war was over and everyone got to look at the historical documents it turns out that they were terrified of the U.S., more so than the other way around, and not as much of a threat as we made them out to be. Historically China has not been as adventurous as Europeans in this regard, although of course they have exerted a lot of influence in their region before the Europeans dominated them, and later the Japanese. They are dominating minorities in Tibet and the Uyghars, similar to how we've screwed native americans and black folks. It seems like they have been expanding their influence in Africa lately. Or maybe I don't follow what is meant by domination here. Maybe you mean the way the U.S. dominates the worlds oceans and trade? I assume that China wants to get out from under that, along with a number of other countries. Nobody likes being dominated by others. I assume they, and others, have been saying the same about us.

totalZero 5y ago

Marriott has a lot of hotels in the third world, and Chinese diplomats and delegates pay money to stay with them. I find it unsurprising that Marriott chooses its business interests rather than taking a political stand.

beaunative 5y ago
that's capitalism.

civilizationUp 5y ago

I don’t see any problem from Marriott. A business is smart to stay away from politics(like Elon Musk on abortion issue), especially when it is difficult to judge who is representing justice(both have bad reputation among certain group of people).

TimTheTinker 5y ago

My favorite part: > Prague mayor Zdeněk Hřib, who attended the conference, said in response: "I hear that China is unhappy about this conference being held here in Prague. Well, I am unhappy there's a country in 2021 that has concentration camps." I don't know why it's so politically incorrect to call out the Chinese communist party on its human rights abuses. It's clearly a highly authoritarian, abusive country -- one of the major blots on the human race at the present time, along with North Korea. We ought to be brave and speak the truth about it.

dirtyid 5y ago

Santizing discussion around "political neutrality" when PRC considers WUC a seccessionist and terrorist group with connection to ETIM who has history of terrorist attacks in PRC. I find it amusing how the article compares Marriot hosting Pompeo to WUC, again PRC's equivalent of Taliban. More on the nose than one would think. Looks like crisis management by Marriot throwing the local franchise under bus though. Wonder if WUC will take them up on the offer for other conferences.

burgerzzz 5y ago

I worked at Nike and we had the same thing occur. Basically change any and all references of Taiwan to “Taiwan - A province of China” or they threatened to shut down Nike.com in China. Everything else stopped until we made the change. I thought it was weird and showed how much influence China had over even a huge American company and brand. I quit three months ago, have vowed that I will never work for a corporation that chooses greed over people again.