Nations across the world are increasingly being asked to choose between trade and human rights. The end of the Cold War has brought into focus new concerns. No longer are we living in a bi-polar world where nations line behind one of two super powers. In the past nations essentially aligned themselves with either the United States or the Soviet Union. The demise of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the United States as the sole super power represents the victory of capitalism over communism. Whether it also represents a victory for democracy has yet to play itself out. And whether countries fall behind U.S. policy also is questionable. Nations seem to be primarily concerned with increasing international trade regardless of who they do business with.
International respect for human rights is either characterized by glaring contradictions or by a total absence. The United States and most western countries including Canada and E.U. member states trade with China, despite that country’s persecution of its Tibetan and Muslim minorities. France, which prides itself in being the leader of the French-speaking world, not to mention the birthplace of the French Revolution, has traditionally traded with French-speaking nations with dubious records in human rights. France’s main concern is with protecting its sphere of influence in French-speaking Africa against supposed Anglo-American encroachment, regardless of which dictator is in power. Of course President Sarkozy’s victory in 2007 represents a new start in France’s approach. Former countries and members of the francophone association of states are now expected to respect human rights. Whether future Gaulist presidents will adhere to this policy is yet to be seen.
To understand the approach nations take towards human rights one needs to pay close attention to domestic politics. For example, while the United States sees no problem in trading with China, it imposes trade embargoes on tiny countries like Cuba, which were it not for electoral and political considerations in South Florida, would likely see sanctions lifted. Indeed, the United States eventually lifted its trade embargo on the Republic of Vietnam, the only country the United States has ever lost a war to, and which continues to ignore human rights. How does one reconcile trading with Vietnam with imposing an embargo on Cuba?
Complicating the issue is the emergence of countries in the developing world who like their western counterparts have an insatiable appetite for natural resources wherever they can get them. The Congo and the Sudan are examples of countries rich in both natural resources and human rights abuses that countries like China see no difficulty in trading with. China’s economy is currently growing at 9% annually yet it lacks the natural resources (except for coal) to sustain such growth over a long period of time. And what to say of Nigeria, a country rich in corruption that happens to be one of the world’s largest producers of cheap oil? Or Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez is in the process of creating a one party dictatorship? Not to be out done, Russia is also re-emerging as an authoritarian one party state with no respect for human rights and liberties, and where both the freedom of the press and the rule of law are currently drowned in the name of state security. Russia has more natural resources than any other place in the world and what country isn’t lining up to get its hands on it? India and China are fast growing economies with 2.5 billion people. They need energy resources to fuel growth and they will go anywhere they can get it, be it in Nigeria, Venezuela, or Russia. Burma, Azerbaijan, Kazakstan are examples of other mineral rich but authoritarian countries that the West and emerging nations are eyeing for their energy needs.
This begs the question: How do we even determine human rights violations? Should all nations that violate human rights be subject to trade restrictions? To properly deal with human rights violations four things need to be accomplished. Firstly, the notion that human rights should take precedence over trade should be accepted by nations in some future international legal agreement. Secondly, we need to have an understanding of what constitutes human rights violations. Do we basically decide to rank nations and decide that we don’t trade with countries that fall below a certain level? Maybe China is more open than Iran and should therefore be treated differently. Thirdly, there has to be consistency in how we approach human rights violations. Fourthly, a legal mechanism is needed for implementing policies that promote respect for human rights over trade. If Tom Friedman is right that we’re living in a flat world where all countries are increasingly playing on a level playing field, then we need to make certain that everyone is playing by the same rules when it comes to human rights. There’s no point in having an embargo on states like the Sudan if China is willing to go in and buy as much oil as it can get its hands on.
In the end respect for human rights and an international legal system to enforce it will only occur sometime in the future with the creation of a world culture that condemns human rights violations and that makes no room for excuses. We’re not there yet and it will take a lot of time before we get there. There are plenty of challenges ahead, but in the end, it’s only if all states feel that it is in their interest to play by rules that are fair and transparent that we’ll have a system that works. Failing this, international trade will continue to prevail over concern for international human rights violations.
