<html>
<body>
Ted, <br><br>
Thank you for your patience. I have had an opportunity to get up to
speed on this issue. Here is what I have gleaned thus far
.........<br><br>
The problems of labor and human rights abuses you address are an
interesting and troubling one and are issues that have persisted for some
time. Labor/human exploitation has been a tenet of mankind for as
long as humans have existed. I share your concern about the
problems. I also recognize that the problem is very complex. At one
end of the exploitation scale is the simple fact that an employer who
hires personnel will expect to obtain some reward for providing a job
(the billing rate for the services provided by the employee will exceed
the pay rate to the employee). The theory is that the employer
accepts the risk that the business processes will provide a risk/return
reward. The employee is provided an opportunity of reduced
uncertainty about future earnings. Market forces will mitigate the
labor exchange rates so that comparable skills will earn competitive
wages. <br><br>
Of course, at the other end of the spectrum lie the most hideous and
extreme abuses of labor and human rights. I am just as troubled
about those problems as you are (of course, that is a utility theory
issue - comparative personal preferences - so we will have to trust that
you and I see the problem from some stand of equivalence).
<br><br>
Where we probably disagree is how to address those problems. I am
persuaded that the most effective way of resolving most of the labor and
human rights abuses in the world is to promote/establish/encourage
democratic forms of government. From basic democracies arise
"appropriate" standards of rights and the means by which
those rights will be vested and enforced. I also recognize that it
takes a great deal of time for democratic systems to evolve and mature to
a stage where they will be effective in addressing the rights
abuses. The United States, founded as a democratic republic, has
been addressing such problems for all of its brief 200+ years and still
has not eliminated abuse in our society.<br><br>
Thus when we inject our "concerns" about human rights and human
abuses onto the world stage, there is an issue of hypocrisy that must be
managed/dealt with. In one sense, it becomes "our view of the
world versus their view". Our challenge is really one of how
best to bridge the divide.<br><br>
You have focused a lot of your energy on the abuse of multinational
corporations, e.g., WalMart, Google - and I recognize that there
are problems of abuse by many multinational corporations. But I
have visited most of the references you have cited and I am encouraged
that a lot of sunshine is pouring on to these issues. I am also
encouraged that the world community is vesting in a legal system that can
bridge geopolitical boundaries. <br><br>
Given the enormous size of the problem (and the corresponding cost of
"fixing" the problem) I am persuaded that a persistent and
directed movement toward democracy throughout the world is the only
viable long-term solution. I am also reinforced in my view that our
investments in educating citizens from disenfranchised/intolerant
countries is the best long term strategy for promoting a grass roots
democratic movement in those countries.<br><br>
Should we pursue legal actions against multinational corporations when we
can demonstrate legal standing? Absolutely - if such actions
are warranted, they should be pursued (I think we agree on this
point).<br><br>
But as we pursue strategies that interfere with market actions (for
example, boycotting or military action or very stringent policies for
free world companies) we have to be careful that the cure does not cost
more than the disease.<br><br>
China is now the number 1 trading partner for Idaho - China is our number
1 customer. If we are "too aggressive" in our policies
toward Chinese-made products, we can expect Chinese importers to
retaliate. It is clear to me that you understand this.<br><br>
I don't think we are so far apart in our thinking. <br><br>
Again, thank you for your patience. I will have some specific
comments about the "Internet Corporation" issue in another
post. I have been in a dialogue with some computer science types on
this issue - the results of that dialogue have been quite
enlightening. Cyberspace is a very interesting element to get ahold
of. <br><br>
<br>
t 10:35 PM 3/25/2006, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Jeff et. al.<br>
<br>
I apologize for the mistaken sending of the incomplete response that
posted to the list today... It must be a wayward finger that caused
this...<br>
I won't blame my software or computer.<br>
<br>
Jeff, I think the USA should keep trading with China, but take a more
aggressive stance toward not allowing US based multinationals to be
complicit in violating or tolerating labor, environmental or human rights
abuses in foreign nations. I think it is a valid moral argument
that consumers and citizens of the USA can and should insist that the
products they are buying imported from other nations are not associated
with labor, environmental or human rights abuses, whether the products
come from US based multinationals or not. They can vote with their
wallet, and also pressure our government to adopt more aggressive
regulation of US based multinationals to avoid labor, environmental or
human rights abuses being committed or tolerated in foreign nations.
<br>
<br>
I thought it was rather clear from my previous responses that I support
more firm regulation of US based multinationals, to ensure they are not
complicit with violations of labor, environmental or human rights law
when operating in foreign nations, and not just based on the laws of the
nation they are operating in. And that those who raise these issues
in regards to hesitation to heartily support Wal-Mart's expansion in the
US, are raising significant and valid moral issues, along with the
argument that corporations that gain significant competitive advantages
over US based manufacturers by taking advantage of a lack of labor,
environmental or human rights law, or enforcement of such law, in other
nations, laws that US based manufacturers must follow, can have negative
impacts on US workers and jobs, and our economy. <br>
<br>
It appears that our brief discussion on this issue was approached too
"personally." So I will let other scholars, who know far
more than I do, present some of the complex issues, arguments and
solutions relating to these issues. <br>
<br>
I am sure Jeff has heard of the Alien Torts Claims Act? There is
debate that in fact US based multinationals can be held liable within the
US in US courts for human rights violations in foreign nations.
Some think certain applications of law in this regard to be invalid, but
the cases have been in court, nonetheless. <br>
<br>
Information at the links below relating to multinationals, and the legal
and regulatory environment, both domestic and international, that
addresses assuring they are not violating labor, environmental and human
rights laws: <br>
<br>
<a href="http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4131">
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4131</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.earthrights.org/files/Reports/inourcourt.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://www.earthrights.org/files/Reports/inourcourt.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://law.vanderbilt.edu/journal/37-01/pagnattaro.pdf">
http://law.vanderbilt.edu/journal/37-01/pagnattaro.pdf</a><br>
<br>
-------------<br>
<br>
Ted Moffett<br>
<br>
<br>
_____________________________________________________<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net /" eudora="autourl">
http://www.fsr.net
</a> <br>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ</blockquote></body>
</html>