Following are the two debate queries. Please provide both sides of the issue for each query with references. (1000 words).
1.) The US
government should institute formal policy that bars overseas sales of
systems that provide targeted Internet surveillance if such systems are
used to violate human rights or freedom of speech (such as the
current internet censorship in China).
http://euobserver.com/24/30197
http://euobserver.com/24/30197
For:
There are many reasons why the United States should create and enforce a formal policy that bars overseas sales of systems that provide targeted Internet surveillance if such systems are used to violate human rights or freedom of speech. The root of such action is that America is a democracy that has a strong belief in basic human rights and world peace. America spreads and promotes those beliefs and principles through signing of treaties and other various agreements with other nations or unions that have similar intentions and core beliefs. Because America is such a strong nation with many allies, it feels that it has to do whatever it takes for all other nations that violate human rights and freedom of speech to stop and follow democratic, basic beliefs which entitle everyone to have freedom of speech. With the allied forces America feels the need to intervene or pressure nations or governments where human rights are being taken away or threatened by unjust regulations, movements or protests.
America should follow European Union's footsteps. In the past week EU forbidden European technology companies to sell equipment to repressive governments around the world that abuse human rights. Those technologies violate basic human rights by unknowingly monitoring citizens' internet activity such as emails or blog posts, phone calls and text messages. It's not a problem that only European companies face, Americas' do too. Companies such as Cisco, Linksys and Microsoft have faced those problems in the past.
Against:
Although America should continue to promote world peace and basic human rights it should "limit" itself. Yes it is a very powerful nation but putting too much pressure on its companies, laws, regulations and other nations that follow different principles could end badly. Firstly the major companies that have their headquarters and factories the US could simply choose to move overseas where no such regulations exist, which would lead to even easier business practices and a larger profit line. As for the nations that are violating basic human right, if they are pressured too much or
are not able to purchase certain equipment because of regulations forbidding the sale to their country from the manufacturer's, they will get angry and upset. This could lead to a bigger problem such as a boycott, protest or even a war in very extreme circumstances.
There are many reasons why the United States should create and enforce a formal policy that bars overseas sales of systems that provide targeted Internet surveillance if such systems are used to violate human rights or freedom of speech. The root of such action is that America is a democracy that has a strong belief in basic human rights and world peace. America spreads and promotes those beliefs and principles through signing of treaties and other various agreements with other nations or unions that have similar intentions and core beliefs. Because America is such a strong nation with many allies, it feels that it has to do whatever it takes for all other nations that violate human rights and freedom of speech to stop and follow democratic, basic beliefs which entitle everyone to have freedom of speech. With the allied forces America feels the need to intervene or pressure nations or governments where human rights are being taken away or threatened by unjust regulations, movements or protests.
America should follow European Union's footsteps. In the past week EU forbidden European technology companies to sell equipment to repressive governments around the world that abuse human rights. Those technologies violate basic human rights by unknowingly monitoring citizens' internet activity such as emails or blog posts, phone calls and text messages. It's not a problem that only European companies face, Americas' do too. Companies such as Cisco, Linksys and Microsoft have faced those problems in the past.
Against:
Although America should continue to promote world peace and basic human rights it should "limit" itself. Yes it is a very powerful nation but putting too much pressure on its companies, laws, regulations and other nations that follow different principles could end badly. Firstly the major companies that have their headquarters and factories the US could simply choose to move overseas where no such regulations exist, which would lead to even easier business practices and a larger profit line. As for the nations that are violating basic human right, if they are pressured too much or
are not able to purchase certain equipment because of regulations forbidding the sale to their country from the manufacturer's, they will get angry and upset. This could lead to a bigger problem such as a boycott, protest or even a war in very extreme circumstances.
United Sates does not have to and should not force our beliefs, practices and regulations on other countries that handle things differently than we do. While I believe they should be able to and do intervene in extreme circumstances, for example to rescue American citizens held hostage; they should not over do it. By over doing so, they are pushing or even transgressing the boundaries and treaties that we have set with other nations. If we infiltrate other nations they will get upset because we would never let anyone do it to us. In my opinion, it's kind of like a one way thinking and doing that America participates in. Also just because we have our own beliefs, morals and regulations, it doesn't mean that the other nations do too and follow it, in fact they will probably have completely different ones. It's two different worlds out there and we should leave it that way, we're better of doing so than trying to change other nations' government, beliefs and regulations and creating friction, heat and potential trouble.
No comments:
Post a Comment