RateItAll: The Opinion Network

It has been for decades our policy to not conduct business with nations where the human rights are violated. Unfortunately, our determination has somewhat relaxed and we do business with questionable regimes. It is a well known and established fact that our willingness to help other countries financially have not made the situation of violations of human right better in those nations. Besides, most of the benefits for trading with such countries would not reach the intended needy segments of the populations but end up in the private accounts of the elite class.

I would think this is a matter of common sense.

sure but who can you detemine that when your own country doesn't really take into account human rights. seems to me all Nations have skeletons.

Definately.Showing concern for human rights is a step in the right direction.I'd rather go without that new shirt or pay more for it than support child labor and sweat shops.

I think there's more to this than meets the eye at first glance. With the global economy being what it is, it's tough to starte making assessments and judgements of human rights violations (violations by whose standards, those of the US only?). Although we tend to deplore exploitation of child labor (that seems to be at the top of the list), the fact is that we probably couldn't get some goods as cheaply as we do from overseas if the employers paid even the minimum wage. Also, although it may be exploitation in our eyes, and may be so in objective terms as well, many of these kids, or even adults who are paid a pittance (by our standards) need these jobs to survive. Should we be critical of businesses like internet service providers who outsource telephone tech support to places like India, where wages are a lot cheaper than they are in the US? When you pick up a phone to place a catalog order, you never know where in the world the person at the other end of the line is located (another for instance). We can moan about exploitation, but what about companies here in the US that hire illegal immigrants because they work for less than most Americans would? I also think that sometimes we pick and choose our battles with human rights violators (i.e., we can really blast Sudan and say we won't trade with them, but what do we get from them anyway? As someone pointed out, we sure keep on trading with China). I'm not sure that this has been my most articulate post, but the point is, there are plenty of issues to consider with with respect to this question.

Yes, of course. For an example, let's back up to 1860, and pretend you are a European country. Do you think it's morally acceptable to get cheap cotton from the United States, a country that still has legal slavery, and which uses those slaves to harvest the stuff?

Yes. Although a policy such as this has not been enforced by our leadership since the turn of the century (early 1900s), and would be extremely difficult to implement now while working backwards to fix the problem, it is still a worthwhile goal. The value of our freedoms are expressed in the wealth this country is able to produce. Those nations who embrace freedom should rightly benefit from the consequances thereof; with individual freedom comes the right to free trade. Criminal dictatorships or organized gangs of thugs such as Communists do not allow any freedoms to their citizens, and control all aspects of trade. In trading with them, you are essentially trading with mobsters and crooks. Obviously, no trade is possible with criminals. If they aren't stealing from you, they are stealing from the oppressed people of their corrupt regimes. It is not ethical to try to do business with them; they should be left to rot. Let the free nations act as an example of the benefits of freedom, not an ATM machine for oppressive regimes to take money from (or worse, take handouts from misguided free nations, like giving subsidies to Afghanistan as the US did up until a short time ago).

I don't think so. I think it's a separate concern. Not to say that it should be ignored necassarily, just that it should be considered separately.