Latest International Debates

Trade with Vietnam:
Accession to the WTO and Normalization of U.S. Relations
Should the United States Congress Approve Permanent Normalized Trade Relations With Vietnam?
(Excerpted From International Debates, December 2006)

After nearly 12 years of negotiations, in November 2006, Vietnam was invited to become the 150th member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Membership in the WTO will give Vietnam the protection of the multilateral system of trading rules in its relations with other WTO members, including the United States. It will also enable Vietnam to use the WTO dispute-settlement process to resolve its differences with other members and to participate fully in negotiating the trade rules of the future.

Accession to the WTO is the culmination of a long struggle for this small but densely populated Southeast Asian nation that has been held back for half a century through war and economic sanctions.

The final step toward full normalization of relations between the two countries would be for the United States to grant unconditional, permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status to Vietnam - a move requiring congressional approval.

In November 2006, legislation to grant PNTR status to Vietnam fell 32 votes short of the two-thirds majority necessary to secure passage in the U.S. House of Representatives, dealing a setback to President George W. Bush just as he was on his way to an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit, held in Vietnam's capital of Hanoi. Supporters plan to bring up the bill again in December, during the lame-duck session of Congress, but it faces obstacles in the Senate as well as continuing opposition in the House.

Those favoring granting Vietnam PNTR status say that it will allow the United States to cement its relationship with one of the most dynamic and successful emerging Asian economies and symbolize a new era in which trade can finally overshadow the memories of war.

Opponents cite America's growing trade deficit, now close to $800 billion, and warn that approval of PNTR could jeopardize American jobs, particularly those in the textile industry, to low-wage foreign competition.

Regardless of Congress's actions, Vietnam will officially join the WTO after its own government has ratified the agreement. While the event has been hailed as a turning point, challenges and opportunities are sure to lie ahead as Vietnam finally enters the world stage and confronts the forces of globalization.

The North Korean Nuclear Test:
The Security Council Responds to the Crisis

Should the UN Security Council Impose Sanctions on North Korea for Conducting a Nuclear Weapon Test?
(Excerpted From International Debates, November 2006)

On October 9, 2006, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea - as North Korea is officially known - announced that it had successfully conducted an underground test of a nuclear device. In a short public statement, the North Korean Government said the test "will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it."

The decision by the North Korean Government to become a nuclear power represents the failure of a decade-long negotiation process between North Korea, its neighbors, and the United States to keep the nation in compliance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to integrate it into the global community.

The presence of nuclear weapons in North Korea threatens to destabilize the entire region. It represents a direct challenge to the U.S. Government, which pledged to prevent what President George W. Bush termed "axis of evil" nations such as North Korea from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. China also loses credibility because, despite being the primary benefactor of North Korea, it was unable to dissuade Kim Jong-Il from conducting a nuclear test. And Japan and South Korea, which had recently made friendly overtures to the North Korean Government, are left rethinking the effectiveness of their policies.

Since the nuclear test and the resulting outcry, the media have reported, on one hand, that Kim Jong-Il has expressed regret over the detonation and, on the other, that the nation is preparing a second test. Neither of these stories can be verified. Contact between North Korea and the outside world is limited, and there is little way to determine the government's true disposition and whether the sanctions will have any effect.

With North Korea refusing to return to the negotiating table until sanctions and financial holds are lifted, and with the United States refusing to acquiesce until North Korea verifiably dismantles its nuclear program, this high-stakes standoff will continue to cast a shadow over the region.

The U.S.-Mexico Border:
The Debate Over Expanded Barriers to Immigration

Should the U.S. Congress Pass H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006?
(Excerpted From International Debates, October 2006)

Estimates are that some 450 million people traverse the 2,00-mile U.S.-Mexico border each year, more than a million of them illegally. And the pace of unauthorized arrivals has accelerated over the last two decades. On average, nearly five times as many illegal immigrants now come into the United States each year as entered in the 1980s. There are now about 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the United States, four out of 10 of whom have been in the country five years or less. Seventy-five percent were born in Latin America and enter via the southern border.

U.S. immigration law has swung back and forth throughout the last century, at times welcoming immigrants and at times attempting to shut the door on them. Illegal immigration, especially from Mexico, remains a lightening-rod issue. Major concerns are that unauthorized migrants undercut wages, particularly among unskilled workers, and that enrollment of their children in large numbers at local schools raises educational costs and disrupts instruction. Recently added to this list is the issue of national security.

Many others believe that the work illegal immigrants perform is vital to the health of the U.S. economy, and U.S. industry continues to hire large numbers of Latin American workers. About 45 percent of all agricultural laborers in the United States are illegal immigrants.

In response, the House and Senate passed significantly different immigration reform proposals. The House-approved bill focused on worksite enforcement and border security, while the Senate measure offered citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants and created a guest worker program similar to that favored by the President.

With a compromise unlikely this year, the two chambers took up more limited legislation, called the Secure Fence Act. The measure would direct the U.S. Homeland Security Department to construct a double-layered fence along 700 miles of the shared border and authorize a 'virtual fence' of unmanned aerial vehicles, motion sensors, and infrared cameras.

Proponents of the legislation argue that the border is not simply a crossing point for Mexicans seeking work but the most popular route for drug dealers and smugglers, and a potential back door for terrorists entering the United States. Some opponents maintain that the bill is a Band-Aid approach.

As Congress prepared to recess for the November midterm elections, the Secure Fence Act was mired in Senate wrangling over national security issues - and there was no guarantee that the matter could be resolved during a post-election 'lame-duck' session.

The Israel-Lebanon Crisis:
The UN Faces the Latest Conflict in the Middle East

Is Israel's Military Action Against Hizbollah in Lebanon Justified?
(Excerpted From International Debates, September 2006)

The latest chapter in the bloody history of the Middle East unfolded this July, as conflict once again erupted between Israel, the Palestinian Hamas organization, and Lebanese Shiite Hizbollah forces. When a ceasefire finally took effect a month later, more than 1,000 people had died - mostly civilians - and more than a million in the region were forced to flee their homes for extended periods.

As the situation escalated, the United Nations Security Council deadlocked over how best to respond. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, which Lebanon and its fellow Arab states fully supported. The United States was more circumspect, supporting Israel's right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. European nations fell somewhere in between, cautioning Israel not to use disproportionate force to subdue Hizbollah.

On August 12, more than four weeks after the fighting began, the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution calling for Hizbollah to cease its attacks and for Israel to terminate all offensive military operations. It instructed the Israeli army to withdraw from southern Lebanon and be replaced by the Lebanese army, backed with a multinational UN peacekeeping force. In addition, the Security Council reemphasized earlier UN resolutions calling for the disarmament of all Lebanese militias, including Hizbollah.

Whether the ceasefire leads to a permanent resolution of the Hizbollah-Israeli conflict remains to be seen. Much will depend on how well the Lebanese and UN troops maintain order in southern Lebanon. The overall stability of Lebanon is in question as well, as much of the nation's infrastructure was damaged during the war. Finally, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute continues to remain a root cause of much of the region's turmoil. Until a lasting peace settlement can be achieved, the potential for more bloodshed and destruction remains great.

The Human Rights Council:
A New United Nations Effort to Uphold Its Ideals

Should the UN General Assembly Approve the Draft Plan for a New Human Rights Council?
(Excerpted From International Debates, May 2006)

The concept of human rights — that people the world over, by virtue of their humanity, are entitled to certain inalienable rights — is a modern one, though its roots lie in earlier traditions and documents, and abuses have existed throughout history.

A turning point came in the aftermath of World War II when the newly formed United Nations in 1948 adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration urged member nations to promote and adhere to a number of human, civil, economic, and social rights, asserting that such rights are part of "the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world."

The Declaration is considered the most important achievement of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

But in recent years, the Commission has been criticized for being bureaucratic, ineffective, and excessively political, and for allowing notorious human rights abusers on the panel.

In 2005, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed that the Commission be replaced with a Human Rights Council, a smaller body that would meet throughout the year, with membership restricted to countries that "abide by the highest human rights standards."

The General Assembly, on March 15, 2006, voted by an overwhelming majority (170 to 4) to create the new Council. The United States, joined by Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, opposed the resolution; Belarus, Iran, and Venezuela abstained.

Supporters described it as a watershed moment in the protection and promotion of human rights, and a continuation of the process that began with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On the other side, U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton called the text of the resolution insufficient to meet the Secretary-General’s goals.

The resolution calls for the election of Council members on May 9, 2006, and for the first meeting to convene on June 19, 2006. As of late April, 64 countries had announced their candidacies. Many of the worst human rights violators declined to run, raising hopes among human rights advocates that the governments represented on the Council won’t shy away from condemning atrocities or taking appropriate action to respond to them.

Guantánamo Bay Detainees:
Geneva Conventions in the Age of Terrorism

Does the Treatment of Prisoners at the Detention Facility in Guantánamo Bay Violate International Law?
(Excerpted From International Debates, April 2006)

Shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush authorized the detention of noncitizens suspected of having ties to al Qaeda and the Taliban at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Since then, some 500 men have been held at the facility and 256 others have been released, 76 to the custody of their home countries.

The detention center has become a flashpoint for international controversy because of the U.S. Defense Department's determination to hold the detainees as "enemy combatants." Under the Geneva Conventions - a legal regime for the treatment of detainees in armed conflict, to which the United States is a party - members of armed forces who are taken prisoner are entitled to certain privileges.

In a crucial Justice Department memo of January 2002, lawyers advised the President that the POW provisions of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to any Taliban or al Qaeda prisoners because Afghanistan was a "failed state" whose militia did not have any status under international treaties. Thus, the Bush Administration has reasoned, the detainees may be held indefinitely without trial, even if they are eventually acquitted by a military tribunal. This policy has been challenged in the courts.

Meanwhile, the detention and treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo has drawn widespread criticism from human rights organizations and foreign governments. In February 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Commission issued a report charging that the U.S. Government was in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recommending that the prison be closed and that detainees be charged with a crime or released.

The controversy poses an array of legal questions, not the least of which are what constitutes an enemy combatant and how war and justice should be defined in the twenty-first century. The ruling on the Hamdan case, due by July, may shed some light on these issues.

Genetically Modified Foods:
Benefits, Risks, and Global Marketing

Does the European Union's Policy on Genetically Modified Foods Violate World Trade Organization Agreements? (Excerpted From International Debates, March 2006)

Humans have been modifying crops to suit their purposes for thousands of years. Recent scientific developments, however, have taken crop modification to a new level. Breakthroughs in gene research have allowed agricultural companies to alter the DNA makeup of a wide variety of common plants. A field sowed with genetically modified seeds will produce a larger harvest, increasing profits for the producer and eventually reducing costs for consumers. Despite these potential benefits, some have raised objections to the spread of genetically modified crops, arguing that their use could have unintended and potentially dangerous side effects.

The debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) escalated into a dispute between nations in October 1998, when the European Union (EU) Commission and its member states initiated an unofficial moratorium on approving new GMOs for importation.

On May 13, 2004, the United States, Canada, and Argentina - home to 80 percent of all genetically modified crops - announced they would challenge the EU policy and specific bans enacted by six EU member states before the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body.

By persisting with its moratorium, they continued, the EU was preventing its citizens from benefiting from new, safe technology and instead was responding to criticisms of GMOs motivated more by irrational fear than sound science. Representatives for the European Union responded that there was no moratorium on new GMO approvals - only a reasonable delay, as regulations and policies were promulgated to address this new use of biotechnology.

On February 7, 2005, the WTO panel issued a draft ruling in favor of the United States, Canada, and Argentina.

The formal panel opinion is expected to be made public by the end of April, at which point the EU may appeal the decision. If the preliminary ruling holds up, the WTO could order the EU to compensate harmed companies - and such damages could reach into the billions of dollars. The draft decision will likely have little effect on current EU policy, but the political implications within Europe could be significant, however, as member state governments and politicians have to confront outcries from environmentalists and a public increasingly sensitive to food safety issues.

Nuclear Weapons:
The Atomic Bomb's Place in the Modern World

Is the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Prohibited Under International Law?
(Excerpted From International Debates, February 2006)

The atomic age dawned on July 16, 1945, in the desert of New Mexico, when the United States conducted the first nuclear test. The explosion was the result of the Manhattan Project, a top secret program that began in 1942 and grew out of fears that Hitler's Germany might be developing nuclear weapons. Just three weeks later, on August 6, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. On August 9, the United States detonated a second, larger atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki. As a result, the Japanese surrendered to the allies on August 14, ending World War II.

In January 1946, the General Assembly of the newly formed United Nations passed its first resolution, calling for "the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction."

Despite these stated principles, many countries soon began carrying out nuclear tests - the Soviet Union in 1949, Britain in 1952, France in 1960, and China in 1964. During the Cold War, however, there were only two world "superpowers" - the United States and the Soviet Union. The arsenals of the two countries grew, and by 1986 totaled 64,000 nuclear warheads; those held by other countries only amounted to about 1,000. The two nations justified this build-up by saying that the threat to the other side of massive retaliation ensured that the weapons would never be used.

Meanwhile, a number of treaties (both bilateral and multilateral) have placed limits on the development of nuclear weapons. The centerpiece of these, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has been ratified by 189 countries - more than any other arms control agreement.

In 1996, in a landmark ruling in response to a UN request, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that the threat and use of nuclear weapons is contrary to international law and that the complete elimination of nuclear weapons is a legally binding obligation.

The ICJ ruling continues to have relevance today in light of such problems as Iran's and North Korea's suspected clandestine development of nuclear weapons, the disposal of Russia's vast nuclear stockpile inherited from the former Soviet Union, the nuclear arms competition between India, Pakistan, and China - and, since September 11, 2001, the new threat of a terrorist attack using a nuclear explosive.

Ironically, the need for international stability continues to be used as an argument both for and against the reduction of nuclear weapons.

Assassination of Rafik Hariri:
The UN Examines the Lebanon-Syria Connection

Is Syria Obstructing the UN Investigation Into the Assassination of Former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri?
(Excerpted From International Debates, January 2006)

On February 14, 2005, an explosion with the force of more than 2,000 pounds of dynamite shook downtown Beirut, Lebanon. Killed in the blast were former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others in his motorcade. Hariri, a billionaire businessman and prominent Lebanese politician for more than a decade, had recently resigned from his office in a dispute with the Syrian Government. He was protesting pressure by Syria to extend the term of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, who was sympathetic to the continued Syrian military presence in the nation.

Syria quickly became the leading suspect in the assassination plot.

On February 25, 2005, United Nations Secretary- General Kofi Annan ordered an international team led by Irish Deputy Police Commissioner Peter FitzGerald to look into the bombing and possible Syrian involvement. On March 24, FitzGerald issued his report, indicating that while deficiencies in the Lebanese investigation limited concrete evidence, extensive Syrian meddling in Lebanese domestic affairs made it likely that Syria at least knew of the plot.

On April 7, the UN Security Council responded to the report by adopting Resolution 1595, which established a new, more thorough investigating commission that would work with Lebanese officials probing the Hariri assassination.

Led by German Senior Public Prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, the UN International Independent Investigating Commission interviewed hundreds of witnesses and reviewed tens of thousands of documents. On October 20, the Commission presented its findings to Kofi Annan and the Security Council. The report was highly critical of Syria, citing a lack of substantive cooperation with the investigation.

In response to the report, the governments of the United States, France, and Great Britain pressed the Security Council for a new, strongly worded resolution that would condemn Syria for its lack of cooperation and threaten the nation with economic sanctions if it did not become more accommodating.

Diplomats for permanent Security Council members Russia and China and temporary member Algeria led opposition to the U.S.-backed resolution and instead forced a compromise that called on Syria to cooperate more fully, but avoided threats of sanctions. The resulting measure, Resolution 1636, passed unanimously on October 31. On December 15, 2005, the Security Council met again and voted to extend the investigation another six months.

Despite Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon, the situation is still tense in that nation, as bombing assassinations continue - the latest claiming the life of anti-Syrian journalist and politician Gebran Tueni on December 12. Meanwhile, the UN will have to find a new head for its investigation, as Mehlis has announced his plans to return to Germany.

Lebanon's modern history has been one of internal strife and bloodshed, marked only recently by progress toward stability. As the investigation into Hariri's death shows, there are still powerful forces that continue to view violence as the most effective means of shaping Lebanon's future.

View 2005 Debates