“The pursuit of human rights in foreign policy and the pursuit of commercial interests are inherently contradictory." Do you agree?”

"The pursuit of human rights in foreign policy and the pursuit of commercial interests are inherently contradictory." Do you agree?”

Introduction:

The aim of this essay is to disprove the hypothesis in the question. I do not agree with the statement, and believe that the pursuit of commercial interests and the pursuit of human rights are far from contradictory and are in fact complementary. However, I do admit that in the context of world politics and international relations today, the manner in which human rights is being pursued, has resulted in it being contradictory to the pursuit of commercial interests. This essay aims to show the futility of keeping the two as contradictory and instead extols the virtues of trade as a means of furthering human rights pursuits and simultaneously furthering the states’ commercial interests.




Human Rights:

“Your right to swing your arm ends where the other person’s nose begins ”. This is a rather simple manner in which to describe our rights and their limitations. It is also often said, “one person’s right is another person’s duty ”. Bearing these in mind, for purposes of this essay, we define human rights as entitlements that we have by virtue of being human – against the state; and these rights are meant to “make life fulfilling… and are essential for keeping us alive” . In layman’s terms, these ‘human rights’ are certain claims that all human beings are entitled to, which cannot be taken away from us and are in fact something that the individual can stand up to the state for; if not awarded them.

There are many nations which do not practice human rights as set out in the International Bill of Human Rights; some examples would include Nazi Germany, Saddam’s Iraq, current day North Korea, Africa and arguably, even the United States .

One of the most common ways for other countries to urge these ‘rouge’ countries to toe human rights law is to impose economic sanctions on them, essentially restricting trade and withdrawing aid. However this results in economic losses for both nations and may in fact end up worsening the human rights situation in the sanctioned nation. Blocking free trade hurts consumers and the most economically vulnerable citizens and does little to improve general humanitarian conditions . Simple examples to prove this would be the current sanctions imposed by the European Union upon Nepal. In order to restrict the atrocities committed by the Nepali police upon protestors, the European Union has imposed sanctions upon the sale of arms to Nepal. However King Gyanendra of Nepal has showed no inclination to treat the protestors in a manner other than the one he has been using so far .

Another prime example of the failure of economic sanctions to further human rights can be seen in the case of Iraq. The United Nations imposed sanctions upon Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and imposed a “blanket ban on all imports and exports except for "supplies intended strictly for medical purposes, and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs. ” This severe sanction resulted in little more than the severe malnutrition in Iraq and great suffering among the people of the nation. This example just goes to show that imposing sanctions is usually a futile exercise and does little to stop human rights violations, instead worsening the situation for innocent citizens, already under a rule that does not respect human rights.


Trade furthering human rights:

China is a case in point of how trade can further human rights development. This goes to prove the thesis of this essay that the pursuit of human rights and the pursuit of commercial interests are not contradictory.

China has enjoyed Most Favoured Nation status with the United States, as have most other nations, even nations facing US sanctions at the same time. The US however, regularly threatens to withdraw this status. MFN is merely a misnomer for normal trade relations. MFN over the years can be one reason for increased economic growth in China. “Economic reforms in China have transformed daily life for hundreds of millions of people who now enjoy greater opportunity, freedom of movement, material abundance, and access to western ideas. ” Imposing trade sanctions upon China will do little to improve the human rights situation in China and as the failed embargo against Cuba went to prove, it will serve to only isolate the victims and under privileged which strengthening their persecutors by giving them another weapon to damn the West and its ideals. As Pope John Paul II said in relation to imposing economic sanctions, “It is always imperative to foresee the humanitarian consequences of sanctions, without failing to respect the just proportion that such measures should have in relation to the very evil which they are meant to remedy ”.
American – Chinese trade has ensured that American consumers have ready and affordable access to items, which it does not have a comparative advantage in producing itself. This allows America to focus on producing those items, which it is comparatively better at, such as financial services, computers and peripherals, vehicles, furniture and building supplies, to name some. These items are then available for export to China and supply Chinese people with items they would not have such easy access to otherwise .

Imposing trade sanctions on any one country serves to push up the prices of the goods that that country exports; thus punishing the sanctioning country as well as the sanctioned country. Further, article 25 of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights states that every human “has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social service”. By imposing sanctions on China, the United States would be violating both China’s and its own rights to free trade. Sanctions on China will drive up the price of nearly all goods required to maintain an adequate standard of living for Americans, cosmetics, shoes, toys and clothes, all are made in China, and increasing the cost of living for Americans is not a desirable consequence, especially if it has no impact on improving the human rights situation anyway.

In the words of Lee Teng Hui, “vigorous economic development leads to independent thinking. People hope to be able to fully satisfy their free will and see their rights fully protected. And then demand ensues for political reform… The model of our quiet revolution will eventually take hold of the Chinese mainland ”. In the manner of Taiwan, continued free trade and exchange of ideas with China will most probably result in an increasingly well-to-do society who will then demand their rights, as the Taiwanese did. As markets spread, people acquire greater wealth and thus have a much stronger interest in then participating in the political process of their nation in order to protect their property. As Michael Novak writes, “the capitalist preference for law and due process leads naturally enough to the… basic institutions of democracy: the rule of law, limited government, separated powers, and the protection of the rights of individuals and minorities ”. Maintaining free trade will put pressure on governments and policy makers to protect private property rights and to pursuer prudent monetary, fiscal and regulatory policies to avoid massive capital outflows. “Global market competition helps good government crowd out bad government ”.


Stop Aid, Not Trade:

The Norwegian foreign policy can be summarized in the phrase “stop aid, not trade”. By first admitting that economic sanctions are little more than a blunt instrument in combating human rights violations. In their first four years in office, we have seen the Bush regime imposing 68 sanctions on various countries, most non-western. Human rights and commercial interests have become contradictory as both countries only stand to suffer from these sanctions; which just goes to prove that the sanctions and human rights are contradictory and it is in fact commercial interests and human rights of a state that go hand in hand. The Norwegian ministry of foreign affairs espouses to its citizens who conduct business in countries where human rights are not given the same respect as they are in Norway to demonstrate social responsibility by setting an example to the people of the nation .

Norway tries to continue trade as far as possible and in extreme cases, the most it does is to limit the amount of aid that it offers the nation, rather than stopping aid or trade altogether. It tries to ‘identify the most crucial challenges… and also to propose measures, tools and mechanisms ” to improve “awareness of and respect for human rights within the context of economic involvement abroad ”.

The Norwegian policy seems to be the most effective of the lot, the simplest way of gauging this would be the general perspective globally of Norway being seen as a fair and just nation. Stopping or limiting aid rather than curtailing trade serves to continue to exchange of ideas which trade brings with it; as well as sending a message to the concerned authorities on how seriously it takes the flouting of human rights norms.
Conclusion:

In the words of no less than Adam Smith himself, the development of trade and commercial activities in Europe “gradually introduced order and good government, and with them, the liberty and security of individuals ”. On a more contemporary note, Harvard Economist Robert Barro’s study on free society finds that “improvements in the standard of living… substantially raise the probability that political institutions will become more democratic over time ”. He concludes his study with the assertion that “if economic freedom can be established in a poor country, then growth would be encouraged, and the country would tend eventually to become more democratic on its own ”.

With the example of failed sanctions from a number of countries, we have seen the futility of imposing sanctions on any nation in order to influence it to improve its human rights situation. The pursuit of human rights in foreign policy ought to follow the ‘stop aid, not trade’ method instead of penalizing their own citizens by imposing sanctions. By pursuing this policy, the pursuit of commercial interests and human rights will not be at all contradictory and instead be inherently complementary, and much more efficient than the method of imposing sanctions.

Of course, this is not to say that sanctions are never justified. If to say, the US were to stop the sale of arms to a nation with which it was at war, this would be seen as justified, for to continue that would be suicidal. Another example would be if the goods concerned were being made with slave labour or prison labour, or even child labour, in this case, to limit the trade of such goods (like child-made Pakistani carpets), would be justified as the bulk of the money does not go to the carpet-making children anyway. However, even in these cases, there ought not be a blanket ban on trade with the country but instead a restriction on only certain goods.

No country has the right to interfere with free trade for the purposes of promoting its style of governance or because of what it sees as a human rights violation. The freedom to trade is an individual’s right, not a right derived from any government. Human rights violations should indeed be condemned, vehemently at that; but it does not warrant imposing greater suffering upon innocent civilians by imposing sanctions on them. In the words of American President Bush’s predecessor, Ronald Reagan, “the freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations ”.

Bibliography:

Barro, R.J. Getting It Right: Markets and Choices in a Free Society. Cambridge: Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 1996

Dorn, James A “Trade and Human Rights: The Case of China”, The CATO Journal, Vol. 16, no. 1 (Spring/Summer, 1996).

Duffy, Cristina Suarez and Harrold, Michael. FreedomWorks Issue Analysis 33A - Don't Break the China: “Why Continued MFN Status Helps Americans and Chinese”. June 13, 1997.
http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=140 (Accessed on 01/10/05)

English and Stapleton, The Human Rights Handbook, Chapter 1 “What are human rights”, 1997

International Nepal Solidarity Network, “The case for sanctions and extension of restrictive measures: ACHR”. 5/10/05.
http://insn.org/?p=2014 (accessed on 29/10/05)

Journalists for human rights http://www.jhr.ca/countryprofiles.html (Accessed on 10/10/05). ©Copyrights 2002-2003 JHR Journalists for Human Rights JDH Journalistes pour les Droits Humains

Novak, Michael “Introduction”, in Messick, R. E. World Survery of Economic Freedom, 1995-1996. New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers, for Freedom House.

Reagan, Ronald “Remarks at a White House Meeting With Business and Trade Leaders”, September 23, 1985.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1985/92385a.htm (Accessed on 01/10/05)

Sirico, Robert - Trade Policy briefing paper no. 2“Free trade and human rights : the moral case for engagement”, 17/7/05. Paper based on remarks delivered at CATO Institute Policy Forum, 27/5/1998

Smith, Adam The Wealth of Nations, Edited by Edwin Cannan. New York: The Modern Library (Random House). ([1997] 1937)

Utenriksdepartementet: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “Commercial Aspects of Human Rights Endeavours”
http://odin.dep.no/ud/english/doc/handbooks/032111-120003/hov003-bu.html (Accessed on 01/10/05)