Should Chinas Human Rights Record Prevent Permanent Normal Trade Relat

Should China's Human Rights Record Prevent Permanent Normal Trade Relations Background Since the initial warming of U.S.-China relations in the early 1970s, policymakers have had difficulty balancing conflicting U.S. policy concerns in the Peoples' Republic of China. From Nixon to Clinton, presidents have had to reconcile security and human rights concerns with corporations' desires for expanded economic relations between the two countries. While the U.S. regularly objects to China's human rights violations, the Chinese government counters with complaints that the American concerns represent unwarranted American intrusion into its internal affairs. In 1989 the Tiananmen Square massacre drew public attention to the inconsistent character of U.S.-China policy. A wave of public indignation with China's repressive practices forced the Bush administration to adopt a sterner posture toward human rights violations and to impose sanctions, including restrictions on bilateral and multilateral aid. But these measures have not satisfied some critics of China's human rights practices, who contend that the U.S. should apply even more rigid trade restrictions against China. Specifically, some critics insist that the U.S. government not give China permanent normal trade relations status, which would free China's government from an annual review of its human rights record by Congress. Many critics say PNTR standing should be linked to improvements in China's human and labor rights practices - a policy that has been rejected by the Clinton administration. Rather than denying China normal trading status because of human rights violations, the Clinton administration has opted for a policy of comprehensive engagement, which holds that long-term U.S. goals such as human rights improvement are more likely to be achieved through sustained contact and open trading than by further isolating China. Yet Chinese human rights practices, including respect for political and labor rights, continue to fall well below internationally accepted standards. In perhaps the stickiest issue, the White House warned last week that there was little chance of PNTR for China without legislation setting up a watchdog commission to monitor Beijing's human rights practices. China, however opposes any plans by the U.S. to monitor human rights as a condition to granting PNTR. On One Hand... American businesses should not be coddled at the expense of human rights. Despite expressions of concern for human rights conditions, the U.S. government has allowed narrow economic interests, particularly those of corporate investors, to guide its China policy. So far, the U.S. government has been unwilling to jeopardize U.S. economic relations by adopting stricter human rights conditions on aid and trade. China's trade status is currently reviewed annually by Congress. By establishing permanent normal trade relations and doing away with the annual vote, the U.S. will give up its leverage over China's human rights policies. Permanent normal relations should not be granted until long-term progress is made on human rights in China. On the Other Hand... The United States government has no authority to sit in judgment on the human rights records of other governments, especially given the U.S. government's own complicity in some human rights violations in foreign lands. You don't have to embrace a government or its policies to engage in trade. If trade were a beauty contest, we'd trade only with a small group of nations that mirror our own society, and would be in a virtual cold war with the rest. Furthermore, U.S. imposed trade barriers are unlikely to change the policies of China's communist leaders. The most powerful force for labor, human rights, and the environment is economic liberalization and global market forces. Growth and rising income give workers the chance to improve their lives. History & Facts ? In 1994 President Clinton officially delinked trade and human rights in China. According to Human Rights Watch, every year since delinkage, human rights conditions in China have gotten worse. ? According to Amnesty International's 1999 China Report: Hundreds, possibly thousands, of activists and suspected opponents of the government were detained during the year. Thousands of political prisoners jailed in previous years remained imprisoned. Some had been sentenced after unfair trials, others were still held without charge or trial. ...Torture and ill-treatment remained endemic, in some cases resulting in death. ? According to the U.S. State Department's 1998 China Human Rights Report: The Government continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms.

Was Germany to Blame for WW2 essays

Was Germany to Blame for WW2 essays The question of whether or not Germany was to blame for the instigation or World War One has been a key question which many historians like, Ficher, and many others have tried to rationally answer but there is a level of controversy involved. The common belief is that the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand was the spark, which set off the war. Besides this factor, there were other contributing instances which both indicate Germanys participation and other nations in Europe creating the war such as political alliances, imperialist ambitions, nationalism and militarism. For years, the European nations had been making alliances with eachother. It was thought the alliances would promote peace in the continent. Their allies in case of war would thus protect each country. This made it a foolish mistake if one country was to instigate a war on another. The danger of these alliances was that an argument between two countries could draw all the other nations into a fight. The formation of alliances did not do what was expected to happen, instead it created conflict, and this can be said to be cause, which led to World War 1. The Triple Alliance composed of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, stood opposed to the Triple Entente composed of Britain, France, and Russia were of major concern. With the formation of the Triple Alliance in 1871 two new major countries in Europe had been formed-the German Empire and the kingdom of Italy. The new German Empire, under the hand of Otto von Bismarck, was directed cautiously, with their eye on France. This was because during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71 France was left yearning for their revenge and for the recovery of provinces of Alsace and Lorraine that they had lost. This gave France an incentive for war against the Germans and Italians. France had the taste of bitterness in her mouth for many years, and the international tensions occurring in the area seemed a perfect time ...

Human Rights Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Human Rights Paper - Essay Example 3) points out, Canada was the first country to adopt an official government policy on diversity. Its multicultural policy, which entered into legislature over thirty years ago, was "Canada's official legislative response to ethnic plurality for a multicultural society (Mahatani, 2002, p. 3). This does not mean, however, that there are no racial and ethnic tensions in Canada but only that the nation is comparatively more tolerant and accommodating of diversity than are many others. If Canada is to maintain relative ethnic and racial harmony it must diffuse the poisoned environment phenomenon which pervaded in the case of Clive Stevens and Robert Symister versus Lynx Industries. In 2005, two black Jamaicans were dismissed from Lynx Industries, allegedly for race-based reasons. The case was brought before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been subjected to racist treatment by Lynx Industries and its employees. The alleged racist treatment encompassed all of racial slurs, race motivated harassment and racist graffiti on the bathroom walls. The defendants denied all allegations but admitted to the graffiti incident. Their legal representative, however, cautioned that it had been a single, isolated incident. The Tribunal was unconvinced and found that the plaintiffs were not credible. The complaint was, therefore, dismissed. Even though the complaint... Interestingly, the Commission contends that "unlike harassment which requires repeated behaviour, a poisoned environment can be created by a single incident, if serious or substantial enough" ("Racial Harassment and Poisoned Environment," 2008, para 5). The creation of a poisoned environment is contrary to the Commission's Code. Importantly, employers are held responsible for either the prevention of the creation of poisoned environment or for taking immediate action against those responsible for it ("Racial Harassment and Poisoned Environment," 2008, paras 5-6). An environment which has been tainted by racism, even if it has assumed the form of a single incident, is considered poisoned because racial tolerance has been undermined, even violated. Indeed, poisoned environments may very well become intolerable for racial minorities, thereby forcing them to leave. While it is important to acknowledge the Tribunal's findings, the fact of the matter is that Lynx Industries did admit to the presence of racist graffiti on the bathroom wall. Certainly, it did caution that it was a single incident and there was no reoccurrence. The fact of the matter is, however, that it did occur and the Commission considers such occurrences a breach of its policies ("Racial Harassment and Poisoned Environment," 2008, paras 1-2). Within the context of the stated, the Commission's findings appear contradictory to its own guidelines. Indeed, even if one assumes that the defendants were truthful in claiming that the plaintiffs were not dismissed for racial reasons but for their on-the-job performance, it could very well be that the environment had been poisoned to the extent where Stevens and Symister could not perform their jobs to the best of their