COMMENT Sanctions and rights
- the odd couple By Susan
Aaronson
In 432 BC, Athenian officials
enacted one of the first peacetime trade
sanctions, over a land dispute with neighboring
Megara. The legislation warranted mention in
Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian
War. Today the relation between trade and
human rights makes front page news. Cambodia,
Vietnam, Egypt and India have restricted rice
exports to ensure adequate affordable food for
their citizens.
Meanwhile, in the US
Congress, Democrats have postponed consideration
of a US-Colombia free trade agreement. The
Democrats argue that because Colombia has not
sufficiently
protected union leaders from
harassment and murder, the United States should
not provide the incentive of a trade agreement.
When human rights are violated, policymakers are
under significant pressure to do something. They
often respond by cutting off trade either to
protest human rights abroad or to protect their
citizens from harm.
Despite the knee-jerk
politics, we still know very little about the
relation between human rights and trade. We don't
know if enhanced human rights protections lead to
increased trade, or if increased trade leads
governments to do more to protect human rights.
And we have little insight as to how trade
agreements and policies will influence the
realization of human rights over time.
But
the dearth of information has not stopped
policymakers from wedding human rights objectives
to trade. For example, US policymakers have used
trade sanctions to punish Cuba for its violations
of political, civil, and religious rights. But 40
years of sanctions have done little to change this
situation.
The United States and other
governments took a different approach to China. As
China sought to join the World Trade Organization,
they argued that more trade would encourage
policymakers to do more to advance human rights.
By including China in the framework of
multilateral rules and obligations, they claimed,
Chinese leaders would learn habits of good
governance. These habits would gradually spill
over into the polity as a whole, and more trade
and cross-cultural interaction would expose the
Chinese people to new ideas about their rights.
The results have been mixed. China has
provided more of its citizens with access to
education, credit, travel, and other
opportunities, and begun to allow public comment
on laws and regulations. But its government
continues to suppress political and religious
rights, as well as access to information.
Policymakers respond differently to China because
of its enormous market and political and economic
clout. For China, the marriage of trade and human
rights is not a marriage of equals. Trade has
trumped human rights.
So how should
policymakers use trade to promote human rights
abroad?
Policymakers should think of human
rights as a market. They can best increase the
supply of human rights abroad with incentives such
as increased market access, technical assistance
and training, and funding for improved governance.
Policymakers should also focus on ways to bolster
the inherent demand for human rights among their
developing-country trade partners.
The
European Union follows this approach when helping
candidate countries join. Candidate countries are
required to protect human rights, and the European
Union provides candidate countries with
considerable foreign aid, financial assistance,
and technical expertise. If candidate countries do
not meet human rights objectives, they can't
accede. In this way, the EU is able to bolster the
supply and demand for human rights as it enhances
trade. The United States tries to do this also by
incorporating provisions for political
participation and due process rights in its free
trade agreements.
Policymakers should also
examine carefully the human rights impact of their
trade policy decisions. Americans are just
beginning to see how subsidies designed to reduce
US oil imports have affected the price and supply
of basic foodstuffs at home and abroad. America's
support for ethanol made from corn is one of
several factors leading to the higher prices and
declining supply of basic foods abroad.
With careful deliberation, trade and human
rights can be made coherent. Trade should not be
wed to human rights simply because it provides a
way for citizens of one country to express their
displeasure over the human rights practices of
other countries. Instead, if policymakers
carefully assess the human rights impact of their
trade policy choices, they may create an enduring
and effective match, and not just a marriage of
convenience.
Susan Ariel
Aaronson, research associate professor at
George Washington University, is the author (with
Jamie Zimmerman) of Trade Imbalance: The
Struggle to Weigh Human Rights in Trade
Policymaking (Cambridge: 2007) .
(Published with permission of the
Global Policy
Innovations
program at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in
International Affairs.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
