Should Trade Restrictions be Used to Influence Human Rights Issues?
POINT: Yes. Some countries do not protect human rights in the same manner as the U.S. At times, the U.S. should threaten to restrict U.S. imports from or investment in a country if it does not correct human rights violations. The U.S. should use its large international trade and investment as leverage to ensure that human rights violations do not occur. Other countries with a history of human rights violations are more likely to honor human rights if their economic conditions are threatened.
COUNTER-POINT: No. International trade and human rights are two separate issues. International trade should not be used as the weapon to enforce human rights. Firms engaged in international trade should not be penalized by the human rights violations of a government. If the U.S. imposes trade restrictions to enforce human rights, the country will retaliate. Thus, the U.S. firms that export to that foreign country will be adversely affected. By imposing trade sanctions, the U.S. government is indirectly penalizing the MNCs that are attempting to conduct business in specific foreign countries. Trade sanctions cannot solve every difference in the beliefs or morals between the more developed countries and the developing countries. By restricting trade, the U.S. will slow down the economic progress of developing countries.
WHO IS CORRECT? Use the Internet to learn more about this issue. Which argument do you support? Offer your own opinion on this issue.