Essay:should democratic countries engage in free trade with non democratic counties Example
Free trade is a global aspect that has helped several countries to manage their economies. Anderson and Marcouiller, “Insecurity and the Pattern of Trade: An Empirical
Investigation, Review of Economics and Statistics, 2002” point out that through trade, countries are able to earn foreign exchange, establish good rapport with other countries and also provide employment opportunities for their citizens. Nevertheless, the major concern in the modern world is the possibility of free trade taking place between democratic countries and non-democratic countries. It is worth noting that democratic countries are nations with governments and leaders who are willingly chosen by the people. Such nations do not intimidate their citizens whatsoever. Examples of such countries are Australia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines and Germany among others. On the other hand, non-democratic countries are countries where the governments and leaders are not willingly chosen by the citizens. Most of the time, the leadership in such countries are authoritarian and there is a lot of intimidation of the citizens. Such countries include China and Malaysia just to mention but a few. Therefore, the main focus of this paper is to determine whether democratic countries such as Australia should engage in free trade with non-democratic countries.
As De Haan and Sturm, 2003, pointed out in “Does more democracy lead to greater economic freedom? New evidence for developing countries”, it does not auger well with humanitarian rights when democratic countries engage in free trade with non-democratic countries. In most of the non-democratic countries, widespread rorting and fraud is often experienced. Basing on the virtue ethics theory of perspectives, the widespread rorting and fraud may encourage the democratic countries to withdraw from engagement in trade with the non-democratic countries. Furthermore, if free trade occurs between such countries, it will be a sign of support for intimidation of human rights yet this is not supported globally.
The media are very essential and significant when it comes to matters that are trade-related. As Bliss and Russet, 1998, pointed out in “Democratic trading partners: The liberal connection, 1962-1989. The Journal of Politics”, the media help in matters such as advertisements and this helps to enhance trade between countries. However, in non-democratic countries such as Chile and China, the media fraternity does not have freedom and liberty. That means that they are normally dictated on what to advertise and what not to advertise and this might be a great barrier to international trade. Therefore, in order to impose forms of economic sanction that will make the non-democratic governments give the media freedom and liberty, democratic counties should not engage in free trade with the non-democratic countries. If free trade occurs between such countries, this will discourage the global fight against intimidation of the media by governments.
In addition, authoritative countries such as Chile and China should not be engaged in free trade with other democratic countries lest they extend their intimidation prowess to such countries. This is because in the non-democratic countries, there is a lot of intimidation of opponent and rival countries and citizens. Therefore, if trade between democratic and non-democratic countries is encouraged, several democratic countries will be intimidated and this might affect the global economy at a later stage.
Admittedly, trade between democratic countries and non-democratic countries should not be encouraged at all costs as this might encourage and promote authoritarian behavior among the non-democratic countries hence the will of citizens in such countries will be crushed. Therefore, basing on the virtue ethics theory of perspectives, the authoritarian behavior practiced in non-democratic nations will force the democratic countries to withdraw from engaging in free trade with such countries. See “Mansfield, E., Milner, H. and Rosendorff, B.P., 2002, why do democracies cooperate more: electoral control and international trade negotiations, International Organization, 56, 3, summer, pp. 477-513”.
To recap it all, democratic nations are nations whereby the leaders and governments are willingly chosen by the citizens. On the contrary, the non-democratic nations are those that have leaders and governments that forcefully come into existence. Therefore, in order to support the global human rights, sanctions should be placed on the non-democratic countries. Cited in Tavares and Wacziarg’s book “How Democracy Affects Growth”, one of the ways of placing sanctions on such nations is by discouraging free trade between the democratic counties and non-democratic countries.
Anderson J.E. & D. Marcouiller, Insecurity and the Pattern of Trade: An Empirical
Investigation, (Review of Economics and Statistics, May 2002) v. 84, iss. 2, pp. 342-52
Bliss H. & B. Russe, Democratic trading partners: The liberal connection, 1962-1989. (The
Journal of Politics, 1998) 60 (4), pp. 1126-47
De Haan J & E. Sturm, Does more democracy lead to greater economic freedom? New
Evidence for developing countries, (European Journal of Political Economy, 2003) Vol. 19, 547–563
Mansfield, E., Milner, H. and Rosendorff, B.P., Why do democracies cooperate more:
electoral control and international trade negotiations, International Organization, (2002) 56, 3, Summer, pp. 477-513.
Tavares J & R. Wacziarg, How Democracy Affects Growth, (European Economic Review, 2001)
vol. 45, no 8, August, 1341-1379
More Important Things