As President Barack Obama wrapped up talks with China this week, all eyes focused on the elephant in the room — human rights.
It’s interesting how many countries appear concerned about human rights issues, yet remain willing to ignore human rights infractions for the sake of trade.
These countries know that China censors the media and the Internet. Still, they continue trade with them. Everyone knows that China trades with Sudan, providing them with weapons quite possibly used in the genocide of thousands in the Darfur region.
Yet everyone ignores that, too.
It is one thing to continue to trade with a country that censors its media. It is much more troubling when leaders are willing to turn their heads when strong evidence suggests the country provides weapons to a Sudanese government involved in the worst genocide since World War II.
In the past, it was rare for countries to even talk about human rights issues while engaged in talks with trade partners. Today, the world has gotten over that. For example, Obama addressed the issue of
censorship in China during talks this past week.
It is time for the world to make human rights a more important issue — one met with punishment instead of rhetoric.
This doesn’t have to mean that countries cut off all trade at once if there are suspected human rights violations. It could simply mean the country is no longer given preferential status for trade.
Serious infractions, such as China selling weapons to Sudan, must be met with this type of punishment from a large number of major powers so that it creates a larger impact. Countries are unlikely to punish a major trade partner unless there is a worldwide reaction against that country.
I do not expect countries to take these actions in response to violations seen as less serious.
The world must slowly work toward punishing these types of actions so that someday even less serious infractions are met with sanctions.
Individuals and companies, at least in the U.S., are held to certain standards when doing business in foreign countries.
Americans expressed outrage upon the discovery that Kathie Lee Gifford’s clothing line included products made in sweatshops.
Shouldn’t countries be held to the same standards as individuals and companies, especially when governments commit atrocities far worse than utilizing sweatshop labor?
It all comes down to the issue of morality versus greed and the almighty dollar.
Which is more important to the countries of the world? Which is more important to the individuals of the world?
I believe morality is important enough that someday countries will put more emphasis on human rights when deciding with whom they trade.
Christopher Long is a management and Spanish double major.
Be the first to comment on this article!