This is also a topic my team will be debating soon. I think that this is a really good one.

Absolutely. The basic rights of humans trump the acquisition of cheap goods. I strongly feel that we shouldn't enjoy the products of hyper-industrialization if it means that we drink coffee produced from the back-breaking labor of underpaid farmers, or eat bananas that are cheap because American companies are poisoning the growers with pesticides, etc.

I agree, but on the other hand, if we worry too much about these issues under other countries' governments, aren't we kinda threatening/disregarding/underestimating their sovereignty?

No. We're not forcing our policies and views on other countries. They're free to treat their people however they see fit. A reluctance to violate the sovereignty of another nation doesn't mean that the policies of those nations should have zero consequences.

well if we are respecting their policies and views on how to treat their people, then why should the policies have consequences. Although we may not want to believe that we are forcing our ideas on them, we are in a way. We're basically saying that "if you don't do things the way we like it, we won't be your friend." Now it may not be best to completely ignore the human rights of other countries, but a refusal of trade or even embargos only cause more harm to the citizens who are being victimized in the first place.

don't you think it could just as easily be fueling the fire. it's not like going ahead and trading with them is giving them any incentive to change their policy.


edit:

we shouldn't want to be friends with places who don't honor basic human rights. i think that's what michael was saying too.

We're not respecting their policies and views -- we're respecting their sovereign right to set their own polices, in that we're not forcing our own upon them (through, e.g., military means). But that doesn't mean that their actions don't have consequences, and that doesn't mean we're still obligated to honor their wishes by continuing trade with them.

In a nutshell: If you want to deny basic human rights to your citizens, you're free to do it, but we're not going to enable you to do so.

But ignoring the issue wouldn't sole anything either. We're basically turning our backs. We should handle the situation, but an embargo isn't the right way to go.



Well how do we know exactly what human rights should be granted? Other countries see America as having human rights issues because we don't provide healthcare to every citizen. Not to mention our previous issues of slavery, discrimination, and many other blemishes on our morality slate.

Now I do understand your point, But if we stop trade, the agricultural workers of another country may be affected far more than the government. That agricultural worker may be depending on the profits of the import/exports with america. We are basically harming them more.

For example: The Cuban Embargo. The Castro family is still in power, and the Cuban people are still suffering.

Just to clarify things, this debate is basically about sweat shops right