HR + HT Case 1AC

Contention One Inherency

1) Human rights abuses abound. Workers are living
in cramped quarters, working long hours, and they
dont have basic safety protocols in their work
environments

China Labor Watch 2015- China Labor Watch, a labor rights watchdog and advocacy organization,
October 22, 2015 Somethings Not Right Here: Poor Working Conditions Persist at Apple Supplier Petragon
http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/upfile/2015_10_21/2015.10%20Apple%20Pegatron%20report%20FINAL--
compress.pdf

In an interview with PBS journalist Charlie Rose in September 2014, Apple CEO Tim Cook was asked what
values he considers most important beyond those of Apple.1 Mr. Cook responded: Treating
people with dignity. Treating people the same. That everyone deserves a basic level of
human rights, regardless of their color, regardless of their religion, regardless of their sexual
orientation, regardless of their gender. That everyone deserves respect. Right now, in
Shanghai, China, a factory owned by the Taiwanese Pegatron Group is pushing out
millions of units of the iPhone 6s for Apple. There, its young production workers toil
six days a week in 12-hour shifts. Each day they are paid for 10 and half hours of
work, not counting 15 minutes of unpaid meetings. The mandatory overtime shift runs from 5:30 pm until
8:00 pm. Most workers will not eat dinner before doing overtime because the 30-break given for a meal is not
workers making the iPhone earn only the local minimum
enough time. Before overtime pay,
wage of $318 per month, or about $1.85 per hour. This is not a living wage . Even if the
factory did not mandate overtime as it does, workers would still depend on their 60-hour workweeks to get by. After
workers take a 30-minute shuttle bus back to their dorms
their long shifts,
where up to 14 people are crammed into a room. Mold grows pervasively along the walls.
Bed bugs have spread throughout the dorm, and many workers are covered in red bug bites. In his interview,
Mr. Cook went on: One of the best ways you can make sure that things are happening well is if people stand up and
say, "Something's happening that's not right here." We've audited so deep in our supply chain. We do it constantly,
looking for anything that's wrong, whether it's down to the -- there's a safety exit blocked. While working
undercover at the Pegatron factory in Shanghai, CLWs investigator was never told the locations of
emergency exits and never participated in an emergency drill. In fact, at the massive production facility,
which employs up to 100,000 people, the investigator never even located an emergency exit. Full transcript of the
interview: http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-full-interview-with charlie-rose-with-transcript-2014-9
SOMETHINGS NOT RIGHT HERE Despite providing only about eight hours of pre-job safety trainingwhere Chinese
law requires 24 hoursPegatron forces each new worker to sign a form that certifies that she has
undergone 20 hours of safety training. A worker also must sign a trainers name on the form. The
factory has workers quickly copy answers to the safety information quiz. These falsified forms are the
types of documentation that are provided to Apple in their audits.
 Contention two is the politics
of disposability
1. Organ Harvesting is a major form of trafficking
Interpol. "Types of Human Trafficking." N.p.,. Web. 21 Sept. 16.
<http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Trafficking-in-human-beings/Types-of-human-
trafficking>.
Trafficking in humans for the purpose of using their organs, in particular kidneys, is
a rapidly growing field of criminal activity. In many countries, waiting lists for
transplants are very long, and criminals have seized this opportunity to exploit the
desperation of patients and potential donors. The health of victims, even their lives,
is at risk as operations may be carried out in clandestine conditions with no medical
follow-up. An ageing population and increased incidence of diabetes in many
developed countries is likely to increase the requirement for organ transplants and
make this crime even more lucrative.

2. Trafficking operates through a dominant conception of

Otherness that sees victims as unimportant, which
perpetuates exploitation. Only through rejecting this
understanding can we open up space for effective politics
that combat this violence
Todres 09 (Jonathan, Professor of Law at Georgia State University, Law, Otherness, and Human
Trafficking, July 2009, Accessed via Project MUSE, [SG])
The recent surge in interest in ending human trafficking has led even Hollywood to take up the cause. Hollywoods foray into this
area evidences the problem with the dominant discourse on human trafficking. In 2005, Lifetime Television aired the first major
commercial film on the issue, Human Trafficking, starring Mira Sorvino and Donald Southerland. The film was praised for bringing
this horrific practice into stark daylight. The films portrayal of the issue, however, received little examination; in the film, all of the
victims were white girls, except one (a Filipina girl), and all were abducted except one who was sold by her familythe only non-
white girl. This portrayal overlooked important realities of human trafficking, including the fact that globally the majority of exploited
girls and boys are not white, while reinforcing stereotypes that other cultures value children less and thus will sell their children
while white Western families must be victims. I submit that these portrayals reflect much deeper held societal views that inform the
prevailing understanding of and responses to the problem of human trafficking. Specifically, I suggest that otherness is a root
cause of both inaction and the selective nature of responses to the abusive practice of human trafficking. Otherness with its
attendant devaluation of the Other, facilitates the abuse and exploitation of particular individuals. Otherness operates across
multiple dimensions to reinforce a conception of a virtuous Self and a lesser Other. In turn, the Self/Other dichotomy shapes the
phenomenon of human trafficking, driving demand for trafficked persons, influencing perceptions of the problem, and constraining legal initiatives to end

Thus, otherness leads men in Western, industrialized countries to

the practice.

rationalize their exploitation of wom[y]m and children in poorer countries . It

also causes Western leaders to overlook the extent to which human trafficking related abuses occur within their own borders at the hands of their own

Similarly, otherness operates in developing countries to permit the

citizens.

exploitation of particular populations. Ultimately, appreciating the true nature of the problem of human
trafficking and its root causes will require overcoming deep-seated beliefs of the lesser value of others and acknowledging a truer picture of the Self and

Exposing and
the role that the Self, or dominant group, plays not only in helping others but also in the exploitation of particular populations.

understanding dominant conceptions of the other is a necessary step in

both generating the political will to eliminate human trafficking and
developing effective measures to combat the practice . To successfully combat human trafficking, it is also
essential to recognize and acknowledge all facets of the Self including its responsibility in fostering or tolerating the conditions under which the Other can
be exploited.

3. Victims of trafficking experience horrific forms of

dehumanization- we must reject this violence
Crouse 07 (Janice, PhD, Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think
tank for Concerned Wom[y]m for America, Sex Trafficking Victims: Disposable or
Human, July 12, 2007, http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=13418, [SG])
We have all heard the catchy song lyrics about "what happens in Mexico" staying in Mexico or the advertisements about "what happens in Vegas"
"What 'happens' in these places does not 'stay' in
staying in Vegas. Ambassador Lagon addressed that fallacy.

these places. It is a stain on humanity. Every time a woman, a girl, a foreign migrant
is treated as less than human, the loss of dignity for one is a loss of dignity
for us all." It was gratifying to hear the ambassador directly address the problems of American popular culture in glamorizing the "ho" and
"pimp." He said, "It's high time we treat pimps as exploiters rather than hip urban rebels. When a pimp insists his name or symbol be tattooed on his 'girls'
he is branding them like cattle dehumanizing them, treating them like property." There are those who would argue that human trafficking is the
inevitable outcome of poverty and that some povertystricken people choose willingly to be involved. But, as Ambassador Lagon pointed out, "There is a
growing refusal to accept enslavement as an inevitable product of poverty or human viciousness. Corruption is typically poverty's handmaiden in cases of
human trafficking." CWA is pleased to be among those that Ambassador Lagon called an "indomitable force." We and other evangelical Christians are at
the forefront of this battle as modernday abolitionists who work for the human rights of wom[y]m and for the dignity of all of God's people. We agree

The victims of
with Ambassador Lagon that trafficking in persons "shouldn't be regulated or merely mitigated; it must be abolished."

this crime are among the "most degraded, most exploited, and most
dehumanized people in the world." We join the ambassador in declaring, "Exploiters must
be stigmatized, prosecuted, and squeezed out of existence." Those who treat
people as commercial commodities pimps, madams and johns are slavers who buy and sell human beings as
disposable goods for their brothels, factories or fields. We must work for good laws and good law enforcement that will treat human trafficking as a
Otherwise, such
criminal offense that will be investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted, convicted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.
crimes undermine everyone's liberty and freedom; only corruptionfree democratic processes create a
society where peace and prosperity are possible for all citizens.

4. The politics of disposability leaves entire populations

open to eradication- this ignorance of human dignity has
become politicized, and will ultimately be the death of
politics
Giroux 10 (Henry, Professor of English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, previous
professors at BU, Miami U, and Penn State Memories of Hope in the Age of Disposability, published
9/28/2010, http://archive.truthout.org/memories-hope-age-disposability63631 [SG])
The new culture of cruelty combines with the arrogance of the rich as morally bankrupt politicians such as Mike Huckabee tell his fellow Republican
extremists that the provision in Obama's health care bill that requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions should be
repealed because people who have these conditions are like houses that have already burned down. The metaphor is apt in a country that no longer has a
language for compassion, justice and social responsibility. Huckabee at least is honest about one thing. He makes clear that the right-wing fringe leading
the Republican Party is on a death march and has no trouble endorsing policies in which millions of people - in this case those afflicted by illness - can

The politics of disposability ruthlessly puts money and

simply "dig their own graves and lie down in them."(7)

profits ahead of human needs. Under the rubric of austerity, the new barbarians such as Huckabee now advocate eugenicist
policies in which people who are considered weak, sick, disabled or suffering from debilitating health conditions are targeted to be weeded out, removed
from the body politic and social safety nets that any decent society puts into place to ensure that everyone, but especially the most disadvantaged, can
access decent health care and lead a life with dignity. Consequently, politics loses its democratic character along with any sense of responsibility and
becomes part of a machinery of violence that mimics the fascistic policies of past authoritarian political parties that eagerly attempted to purify their
societies by getting rid of those human beings considered weak and inferior and whom they ultimately viewed as human waste. I don't think it is an
exaggeration to say that a lunatic fringe of a major political party is shamelessly mimicking and nourishing the barbaric roots of one of the most evil
periods in human history. By arguing that individuals with pre-existing health conditions are like burned-down houses who do not deserve health
insurance, Huckabee puts into place those forces and ideologies that allow the country to move closer to the end point of such logic by suggesting that

such disposable populations do not deserve to live at all. Welcome to the new era of disposability in which
market-driven values peddle policies that promote massive amounts of human
suffering and death for millions of human beings. Programs to help the elderly, middle aged and young people
overcome poverty, get decent jobs, obtain access to health insurance and decent health care and exercise their dignity and rights as American citizens are

denounced in the name of austerity measures that only apply to those who are not rich and powerful.(8) At the same time, the new
disposability discourse expunges any sense of responsibility from both the body politic
and the ever-expanding armies of well-paid, anti-public intellectuals and politicians who fill the air waves with poisonous lies, stupidity and ignorance, all in
the name of so-called "common sense" and a pathological notion of freedom stripped of any concern for the lives and misfortunes of others. In the age of
disposability, the dream of getting ahead has been replaced with, for many people, the struggle to simply stay alive. The logic of disposability and mean-
spirited cruelty that now come out of the mouths of zombie-like politicians are more fitting for the authoritarian regimes that emerged in Russia and
Germany in the 1930s rather than for any society that calls itself a democracy. A politics of uncertainty, insecurity, deregulation and fear now circulates
throughout the country as those marginalized by class and color become bearers of unwanted memories, subject to state-sanctioned acts of violence and
rough justice. Poor minority youth, immigrants and other disposable populations now become the flash point that collapses moral and political taxonomies
in the face of a growing punishing state. Instead of becoming the last option, violence and punishment have become the standard response to confronting

, those considered "other" and

the problems of the poor, disadvantaged and jobless. As Judith Butler points out

disposable are viewed as "neither alive nor dead, but interminable

spectral human beings no longer regarded as human.(9) Thinking about visions of the good
society is now considered a waste of time. As Zygmunt Bauman points out, too many young people and adults are now pushed and pulled to seek and
find individual solutions to socially created problems and implement those solutions individually using individual skills and resources. This ideology
proclaims the futility (indeed, counterproductivity) of solidarity: of joining forces and subordinating individual actions to a "common cause." It derides the
principle of communal responsibility for the well-being of its members, decrying it as a recipe for a debilitating "nanny state" and warning against care for
the other leading to an abhorrent and detestable "dependency."(10) Tea Party candidates express anger over government programs, but say nothing
about a government that provides tax breaks for the rich, allows politicians to be bought off by powerful lobbyists, contracts out government functions to
private industries and guts almost every major public sphere necessary for sustaining an increasingly faltering democracy. Tea Party members are
outraged, but their anger is really directed at the New Deal, the social state and all those others whom they believe do not qualify as "real" Americans.(11)
At the same time the American public is awash in a craven and vacuous media machine that routinely tells us that people are angry, but offers no analysis
capable of treating such anger as symptomatic of an economic system that creates massive inequalities, rewards the ultra rich and powerful and punishes
everybody else. Bob Herbert has recently argued that the rich and powerful are indifferent to poor people and, of course, he is right, but only partly so.(12)
In actuality, it is much worse. Today's young people and others caught in webs of poverty and despair face not only the indifference of the rich and
powerful, but also the scorn of the very people charged with preserving, protecting and defending their rights. We now live in a country in which the

allows entire populations and groups to be perceived and treated as

government

disposable, reduced to fodder for the neoliberal waste management industries created by a market-driven society in which gross inequalities
and massive human suffering are its most obvious byproducts.(13) The anger among the American people is more than justified by the suffering many
people are now experiencing, but an understanding of such anger is stifled largely by right-wing organizations and rich corporate zombies who want to
preserve the nefarious conditions that produced such anger in the first place. The result is an egregious politics of disconnection, not to mention a
fraudulent campaign of lies and innuendos funded by shadowy, ultra right billionaires such as the Koch brothers,(14)the loss of historical memory amply
supported in dominant media such as Fox News and a massively funded depoliticizing cultural apparatus, all of which help to pave the way for the new
barbarism and its increasing registers of cruelty, inequality, punishment and authoritarianism. This is a politics that dare not speak its name - a politics
wedded to inequity, exclusion and disposability and beholden to what Richard Hofstadter once called the "paranoid style in American politics."(15) Driven
largely by a handful of right-wing billionaires such as Rupert Murdoch, David and Charles Koch and Sal Russo, this is a stealth politics masquerading as a
grassroots movement. Determined to maintain corporate power and the benefits it accrues for the few as a result of vast network of political, social and
economic inequalities it reproduces among the many, this is a politics wedded at the hip to an irrational mode of capitalism that undermines any vestige
of democracy. At the heart of the new barbarian politics is the drive for unchecked amounts of power and profits in spite of the fact that this brand of take-
no-prisoners politics is largely responsible for both the economic recession and producing a society that is increasing becoming politically dysfunctional
and ethically unhinged. It is a fringe politics whose funding sources hide in the shadows careful not to disclose the identities of the right-wing billionaire
fanatics eager to finance ultra-conservative groups such as the Tea Party movement. While some Republicans seem embarrassed by the fact that the likes
of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have taken over their party, most of its members still seem willing to embrace wholeheartedly the politics
of inequality, exclusion and disposability that lies at the heart of an organized death-march aimed at destroying every public sphere essential to a vibrant
democratic state.
Contention Three- Moral Obligation
 2) The products we use on a daily basis are tainted with the poor
working conditions of millions of Chinese workers. We are
complicit in these atrocities.

AFLCIO 2015- 9/24, We are the umbrella federation for U.S. unions, with 56 unions representing 12.5 million
working men and women, http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Global-Action/A-Time-to-Reflect-on-U.S.-Role-in-Chinese-
Workers-Exploitation

A Time to Reflect on U.S. Role in Chinese Workers Exploitation 0COMMENTS09/24/2015Lynne Dodson A Time to
Reflect on U.S. Role in Chinese Workers Exploitation This post originally appeared at The Stand. The visit to Seattle
by Chinese President Xi Jinping is a historic moment. Xi is known for his crackdown on corruption in the government
and for opening up Chinese markets. Certainly, the discussions with business roundtable leaders here are geared
Xi's visit is
toward creating more market opportunities in the country with the worlds largest population. But
an opportunity to reflect on the status of
not only for the multinational corporations; its also
workers in China, our complicity and the ways we can stand in solidarity with
the working people of China. Labor laws in China require employers to follow minimum employment
standards. While minimum wages are set by provinces, national law enforces work hours, overtime, holidays, safety
and many other conditions of employment, including the requirement that all employers pay into the social
insurance program for their employees, which includes pension, medical insurance, work-related injury insurance,
unemployment compensation and maternity leave. Enforcement of labor laws is the key to how
workers are treated. Independent unions are not legal in China, and it is also illegal to strike. Nonetheless,
workers in China are demanding their rightswith thousands striking in the apparel industry, taxi driving, teaching
and, most recently, e-commerce workers. There is plenty to criticize in the treatment of workers, the lack of
independent trade unions and the oppression of workers in China. What we must consider though,
in the quest for more global solidarity, is the complicity of the United
States in this oppression. It is no secret that U.S. manufacturingapparel, shoes, technology, toys,
electronics, etc.has moved to China in recent decades as U.S. companies seek lower wages. According to Li
Qiang, to the executive director of China Labor Watch, the U.S. criticism of China
generally stops short of a critique that threatens the economic interests of the U nited
States. In a recent article, Li pointed out that: Tens of millions of Chinese workers, who make
products for multinational corporations that will be consumed by Americans, are
working more than 10 hours per day, six days per week, for less than U.S. $2 per
hour. Tens of thousands of underage Chinese workers toil on production lines churning out orders for American
companies. Factories regularly use toxic chemicals in their production processes and lack adequate safety
protocols, leading to many workers suffering injuries or a serious occupational disease . Minority groups and women
face widespread employment discrimination by factories across China.
 3) The United States government fails to challenge these
abuses

Foreign Policy 7/7/15- The U.S. Just Botched Yet Another Chance to Press for Human Rights in China
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/07/the-u-s-just-botched-yet-another-chance-to-press-for-human-rights-in-china/

Buteven these relatively strong remarks betray a growing problem in U.S.-China

high-level interactions: the unwillingness of American diplomats to raise publicly
with their Chinese counterparts specific cases of human rights abuses . Neither Kerry nor
Blinken raised Beijings concerted efforts to destroy Yirenping, an anti-discrimination group, or the New Citizens
Movement, a civic rights forum. There was no public mention in this setting of well-known cases, such as
imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, or even of Li Tingting, Wang Man, Wei Tingting, Wu Rongrong, and
Zheng Churan, the five feminists detained (and later released) this spring, on whose behalf U.S. officials spoke up in
there were few facts offered to challenge Chinese State Councilor Yang
April. As a result,
Jiechis insistence that, In advancing human rights, Chinas achievements are there
for all to see. And there was little evidence that courageous activists in China could see, of the United States
taking seriously its purported whole of government approach. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden lowered the bar in his
opening remarks. Biden didnt remind his audience that China has freely undertaken a slew of legally binding
Biden gingerly introduced
human rights commitments or the extent to which its violating those. Instead,
the topic by cautioning that he wasnt lecturing and then rattled off a list of
human rights abuses without specifying that those abuses are taking place right
now in China, enabled or tolerated by some of the very Chinese officials listening to
the speech. Having sidestepped the opportunity to challenge those officials, or at least make a principled
argument, Biden concluded that responsible competitors by which he presumably meant governments that
respect human rights do so not just because its the right thing to do, but because its absolutely economically
necessary. He then mentioned his friendships with people in the leadership but named no human rights
defenders from China. Even Chinas plans to host a commemoration this September of the landmark 1995 Fourth
World Conference on Women on womens rights went unchallenged: U.S. officials did not in public sessions
challenge Chinas ongoing harassment of the five feminists, who are released but remain criminal
suspects, but opted instead to call the September gathering a critical opportunity . Rather, they elected
to broadly reference restrictions on civil society, the exclusion of women from opportunities for economic success,
no specifics were given only broad, vague principles, which
and domestic violence. But
posed no meaningful challenge to the Chinese officials present.
 Thus, we embrace the following plan: The
United States Federal Government should
substantially increase its engagement with
China by publicly promoting human rights
and by publicly calling for an end to human
right abuses and human trafficking through
our economic institutions and requiring
affiliate corporations in China to improve
working and living conditions.
 Contention Four Solvency
1) The Chinese government is out to eliminate any citizen that
represents a challenge to its dictatorial rule
Tethong 2015- Lhadon, Tibetan Independence Activist and Director of Tibet Action Institute, Sept. 13
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lhadon-tethong/its-time-for-obama-to-con_b_8112536.html

Since taking over as President in 2013, Xi Jinping has targeted everyone who is
likely to have an alternative opinion to the Chinese Communist Party - this means
lawyers and rights advocates, civil society leaders, journalists, academics, Tibetans, Uyghurs,
Christians and anyone else who may be attempting to practice religion, protect culture,
defend the environment, promote rights, or push for more political openness . This past
summer alone, at least 323 Chinese lawyers and rights defenders working for
human rights, religious freedom, environmental protection, labor rights, etc., were
disappeared, detained, tortured or harassed . And as this crackdown was underway, one of the most
high profile Tibetan political prisoners, 65-year old Buddhist monk and revered social activist, Tenzin Delek
Rinpoche, died in a Chinese prison after 13 years of torture. Protesters in his home region were shot at for
demanding the return of his body and now thousands in the area are living under military lockdown. Xi Jinpings
hardline approach surprised many. When he first took power, observers speculated that this modern Chinese leader,
who had even spent time in his youth studying agricultural technology in Iowa, might usher in a new era of
Determined to crush
openness and liberalization. In fact, the reality has turned out to be the opposite.
even the slightest perceived opposition to his hold on power, Xi has
escalated state repression of civil society on multiple fronts, overseeing
the drafting and implementation of a spate of draconian laws on NGOs,
cyberspace and National Security, while aggressively targeting
thousands of activists. In Tibet - where at least 143 Tibetans have now lit themselves on fire to protest
the suffocating repression they face under Chinese rule - the situation is going from bad to worse, with the
Communist Party recently announcing its intentions to tighten control and stamp out the influence of the Dalai
Lama, including plans to choose his successor. For many Tibetans and rights advocates, witnessing this new low
that Xis policies have brought makes it clear that something needs to give - that world governments need to
change their approach to Beijing.

2) Only when we protect the dignity of the individual over all

else, does life have meaning. In order for life to be worth
living, we must protect individual rights and freedoms

Shue 1989 Professor of Ethics and Public Life, Princeton University (Henry, Nuclear Deterrence and Moral
Restraint, pp. 141-2)

Given the philosophical obstacles to resolving moral disputes, there are at least two
approaches one can take in dealing with the issue of the morality . One approach is to stick
doggedly with one of the established moral theories constructed by philosophers to rationalize or make sense of
everyday moral intuitions, and to accept the verdict of the theory, whatever it might be, on the morality of nuclear
weapons use. A more pragmatic alternative approach assumes that trade-offs in moral
values and principles are inevitable in response to constantly changing threats , and
that the emergence of novel, unforeseen challenges may impel citizens of Western societies
to adjust the way they rank their values and principles to ensure that the moral
order survives. Nuclear weapons are putting just such a strain on our moral beliefs. Before the emergence of a
nuclear-armed communist state capable of threatening the existence of Western civilization, the slaughter of
millions of innocent human beings to preserve Western values may have appeared wholly unjustifiable under any
however, it may be that Western democracies, if they are to
possible circumstances. Today,
survive as guardians of individual freedom, can no longer afford to provide innocent
life the full protection demanded by Just War morality . It might be objected that the
freedoms of Western society have value only on the assumption that human beings
are treated with the full dignity and respect assumed by Just War theory. Innocent human
life is not just another value to be balanced side by side with others in
moral calculations. It is the raison detre of Western political, economic, and social institutions. A free
society based on individual rights that sanctioned mass slaughter of innocent human beings to save
itself from extinction would be morally corrupt, no better than soviet society, and not worth defending. The
only morally right and respectable policy for such a society would be to accept destruction at the
hands of tyranny, if need be. This objection is partly right in that a society based on individual rights that casually
sacrifices innocent human lives for the sake of common social goods is a contradiction in terms. On the other hand,
even Just War doctrine allows for the unintentional sacrifice of some innocent human life under certain hard-
pressing circumstances. It is essentially a consequentialist moral.

Prod multinational companies to play a more significant role in

combatting forced labor in their supply chains.
Lisa Curtis 2015 is Senior Research Fellow for South Asia and Olivia Enos is a Research
Assistant in the Asian Studies Center, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National
Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation

Google, Microsoft, and other large multinationals have recognized that they can
play important roles in combatting human trafficking. Whether investing in
professional development programs or improving oversight in their supply chain,
multinationals are uniquely positioned to prevent trafficking and report on it to local
law enforcement. Continued research and development is needed to improve supply
chain management to ensure that forced labor, sexual abuse, and other forms of
trafficking are not occurring in multinational companies supply chains.
 Contention 5 Economy We reject the systemic
abuses occurring in China. We also reject the
policies of the United States government and its
citizens which are complicit in the abuse of people
in China.

1) Economic diplomacy is one of the tools the U.S. has to

protect those suffering in the status quo in China
Tethong 2015- Lhadon, Tibetan Independence Activist and Director of Tibet Action Institute, Sept. 13
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lhadon-tethong/its-time-for-obama-to-con_b_8112536.html

For more than two decades, politicians and business leaders have maintained that
the opening of Chinas markets would open Chinas political system and therefore
bring greater rights and freedoms , including to Tibet. Eager to secure smooth access to
Chinese markets, they argued that moving embarrassing discussions about Tibet and
human rights out of the public spotlight and behind closed doors would allow
Chinese leaders to save face and make them more open to substantive discussions
and reforms. But this quiet diplomacy approach - embodied by bilateral
dialogue processes that see human rights issues relegated to confidential meetings
between Chinese officials and their counterparts - has utterly failed to improve the
human rights situation in Tibet or China. Instead, it has let Chinese leaders off the hook entirely,
ensuring there is no real price to pay for trampling on human rights in China or Tibet, not
even the embarrassment that China used to suffer during public debates or discussions. In 2009, long before Xi
Jinping even took office, the Obama administration took quiet diplomacy to a new level of quiet when then
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, brushed off the entire subject of human rights on the eve of her first trip to
China. She said the issues were important, but we pretty much know what they are going to say, implying that
discussing human rights issues was a waste of time. Later that year, President Obama broke from tradition and
declined to meet the Dalai Lama until after the President had first made a trip to China and met then-Chinese
President Hu Jintao. Since George H. W. Bush, every sitting U.S. President had received the Dalai Lama at the White
House on the latters first visit to Washington after the presidential inauguration. Whatever the intentions of the
White House, the message received in Beijing was that the United States under President Obama was not going to
prioritize the issue of Tibet or human rights in China. It was clear that increased repression wouldnt result in any
substantive reaction from the international community if the so-called leader of the free world was taking such a
weak approach on human rights. Now, the situation in Tibet and China is so bad that some China-watchers who
previously championed the trickle-down-democracy arguments cannot ignore the ugly reality: China under Xi
Jinping has doubled down on the authoritarian approach, perhaps more so than at any other time since Mao. So how
does the U.S., and any other democratic country for that matter, begin to address such a massive problem? The
place to start seems clear: abandon quiet diplomacy - it is not working. On the occasion of the Chinese Presidents
first state visit to the U.S., the time has come for President Obama to speak out - unequivocally and publicly -
against Xi Jinpings crackdown in China and Tibet. The President should call on Xi to immediately halt the ongoing
assault and release all prisoners of conscience, including mentioning by name Tibetan Buddhist leader Khenpo
Kartse, Uyghur intellectual Ilham Tohti, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, and human rights lawyer Wang Yu. Of
course, a public statement alone is not enough to halt Xis crackdown. There are many tools in the diplomatic
toolbox that can and should be used to support the people of China and Tibet who are struggling to achieve their
basic rights and freedoms.
2) The U.S. can use its trade partnership to ensure that
companies in China adhere to International Labor Organization
standards- Historically, trading partnerships have showcased
American credibility on human rights issues
Burtless 2001- Gary, senior fellow, Economic Studies, Brooks Institution- Workers'
Rights: Labor standards and global trade
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2001/09/fall-globaleconomics-burtless
Proponents of workers' rights argue that trading nations should be held to strict
labor standardsand they offer two quite different justifications for their view. The
first is a moral argument whose premise is that many labor standards, such as
freedom of association and the prohibition of forced labor, protect basic human
rights. Foreign nations that wish to be granted free access to the world's biggest
and richest markets should be required to observe fundamental human values,
including labor rights. In short, the lure of market access to the United States and
the European Union should be used to expand the domain of human rights. The
key consideration here is the efficacy of labor standards policies. Will they improve
human rights among would-be trading partners? Or will they slow progress toward
human rights by keeping politically powerless workers mired in poverty? Some
countries, including China, might reject otherwise appealing trade deals that contain
enforceable labor standards. By insisting on tough labor standards, the wealthy
democracies could lay claim to the moral high ground. But they might have to forgo
a trade pact that could help their own producers and consumers while boosting the
incomes and political power of impoverished Chinese workers. The second
argument for strict labor standards stresses not the welfare of poor workers, but
simple economic self-interest. A trading partner that fails to enforce basic
protections for its workers can gain an unfair trade advantage, boosting its market
competitiveness against countries with stronger labor safeguards. Including labor
standards in trade deals can encourage countries in a free trade zone to maintain worker protections rather than
abandoning them in a race to the bottom. If each country must observe a common set of minimum standards,
member countries can offer and enforce worker protections at a more nearly optimal level. This second argument,
unlike the first, can be assessed with economic theory and evidence. Evaluating these arguments requires
answering three questions. First, what labor standards are important to U.S. trade and foreign policy? Second, how
can labor standards, once negotiated, be enforced? Finally, does it make sense to insist that our trade partners
adhere to a common set of core labor standards?and if so, which standards?

3) Empirically, approaches like the affirmative have been

successful

Guangcheng & McMilan-Scott 13 (Chen, civil rights activist, & Edward, Liberal Democrat MEP,
China: The West Needs to Promote Both Trade & Human Rights, June 14, Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chen-guangcheng/china-trade-human-rights_b_3443081.html)
As economic growth begins to slow and China faces up to its momentous social, environmental and
demographic problems, calls for political reform will become impossible to ignore .
For the West, the question arises of how best to aid this process of reform. Some, both in Europe and
the U.S., are demanding a much tougher approach towards China, including the imposition of
punitive sanctions and high import tariffs. But this is undeniably motivated more by a desire to protect vested
domestic economic interests, rather than as a way to put political pressure on the Chinese government. Crucially,
such an approach risks fueling the perception that the voicing of human rights concerns is only used as a
means of criticism in order to justify protectionist measures against China.
Thiswould play into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party, which is keen to
portray any Western interference as an attempt to contain China s growing global economic
power. Moreover, putting up greater trade barriers would punish ordinary Chinese
citizens and threaten the process of economic engagement that is bringing them
into closer contact with the outside world. Finally, indiscriminate China-bashing risks unwittingly
bolstering support for the current regime - by stoking the flames of nationalism and provoking resentment towards
the West.
Instead, a targeted approach is needed which clearly distinguishes between the Chinese people and
their government. Last months decision by the US government to impose sanctions on 18 individual
Russians accused of human rights violations is a good example. Another case in point is Germany, which
has seen an explosive growth in trade with China over the last decade but has also taken a robust
approach to human rights. Angela Merkel has led the way in trying to defuse the recent trade row
between the EU and China. But since coming to power she has also been vocal in criticizing Chinas
human rights record. This shows that the promotion of trade and human rights need not be mutually
exclusive. Close engagement with China over economic issues should be combined
with a strong and consistent line on human rights .
Contention Six- War Impact
 Human rights violations causes a never-ending
cycle of conflict and violence
Maiese 03. Michelle Maiese is a graduate student of Philosophy at the University
of Colorado, Boulder and is a part of the research staff at the Conflict Research
Consortium. [Human Rights Violations July 2003 Beyond Intractability URL:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/human-rights-violations]
Many have noted the strong interdependence between human rights violations and
intractable conflict. Abuse of human rights often leads to conflict, and conflict
typically results in human rights violations. It is not surprising, then, that human rights
abuses are often at the center of wars and that protection of human rights is central
to conflict resolution.[20] Violations of political and economic rights are the root
causes of many crises. When rights to adequate food, housing, employment, and
cultural life are denied, and large groups of people are excluded from the society's
decision-making processes, there is likely to be great social unrest. Such conditions
often give rise to justice conflicts, in which parties demand that their basic needs be
met. Indeed, many conflicts are sparked or spread by violations of human rights . For
example, massacres or torture may inflame hatred and strengthen an adversary's determination to continue
Violations may also lead to further violence from the other side and can
fighting.
contribute to a conflict's spiraling out of control . On the flip side, armed conflict often leads to the
breakdown of infrastructure and civic institutions, which in turn undermines a broad range of rights. When hospitals
and schools are closed, rights to adequate health and education are threatened. The collapse of economic
infrastructure often results in pollution, food shortages, and overall poverty.[21] These various forms of economic
breakdown and oppression violate rights to self-determination and often contribute to further human tragedy in the
form of sickness, starvation, and lack of basic shelter.The breakdown of government institutions
results in denials of civil rights, including the rights to privacy, fair trial, and freedom
of movement. In many cases, the government is increasingly militarized, and police
and judicial systems are corrupted. Abductions, arbitrary arrests, detentions without trial, political
executions, assassinations, and torture often follow. In cases where extreme violations of human rights
have occurred, reconciliation and peacebuilding become much more difficult.
Unresolved human rights issues can serve as obstacles to peace negotiations .[22]
This is because it is difficult for parties to move toward conflict transformation and
forgiveness when memories of severe violence and atrocity are still primary in their
minds.
Contention Seven Framework
1. Thus the roll of the ballot is to endorse the team who
best challenges human trafficking and human right
violations
2. As debaters, we have an obligation to place trafficking
at the center of our discussions. This is key to
understanding the development of policy necessary to
solve
3. Our discourse first- understanding the complexity of
human trafficking is a prerequisite to solvency high
school is key
4. We realize debate is a game designed to foster
education. However, its more important to consider
how were playing the game than who is winning within
it imaginary impacts dont matter until there is a
justification for their rhetoric. Thats best for debate
because:
5. First, its realistic: Fiat doesnt exist; no plan will ever
be passed at the end of the round regardless of which
way you vote. For example through my debate career I
have caused and save the world from nuclear fire, but
this has never happened.
6. Second Traditional debate desensitizes us to the
suffering of others; rather than proving a framework for
activism, this speculative mindset of fiat only
rewards oppression and suffering of others. Critical
debate is key.
 [___] As a decision maker, the judge
should not evaluate lives in terms of
costs and benefits. Instead, the
judge should adhere to principles
that guarantee human dignity, such
as protecting minorities and other
subjugated groups.
Schroeder 86 (Christopher H., Prof of Law at Duke, Rights Against Risks,, April,
Columbia Law Review, pp. 495-562, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1122636)
From the individual's point of view, the balancing of costs and benefits
that utilitarianism endorses renders the status of any individual risk
bearer profoundly insecure. A risk bearer cannot determine from the kind of risk
being imposed on him whether it is impermissible or not. The identical risk may be
justified if necessary to avoid a calamity and unjustified if the product of an act of
profitless carelessness, but the nature and extent of the underlying benefits
of the risky action are frequently unknown to the risk bearer so that he
cannot know whether or not he is being wronged. Furthermore, even when
the gain that lies behind the risk is well-known, the status of a risk bearer is
insecure because individuals can justifiably be inflicted with ever greater
levels of risk in conjunction with increasing gains. Certainly, individual risk
bearers may be entitled to more protection if the risky action exposes many others
to the same risk, since the likelihood that technological risks will cause greater harm
increases as more and more people experience that risk. This makes the risky
action less likely to be justifiable. Once again, however, that insight seems scant
comfort to an individual, for it reinforces the realization that, standing alone,
he does not count for much. A strategy of weighing gains against risks thus
renders the status of any specific risk victim substantially contingent upon the
claims of others, both those who may share his victim status and those who stand
to gain from the risky activity. The anxiety to preserve some fundamental place for
the individual that cannot be overrun by larger social considerations underlies what
H.L.A. Hart has aptly termed the "distinctively modern criticism of utilitarianism,"58
the criticism that, despite its famous slogan, "everyone [is] to count for one,"
utilitarianism ultimately denies each individual a primary place in its
system of values. Various versions of utilitarian ism evaluate actions by the
consequences of those actions to maximize happiness, the net of pleasure over
pain, or the satisfaction of desires.60 Whatever the specific formulation, the goal
of maximizing some measure of utility obscures and diminishes the status
of each individual. It reduces the individual to a conduit, a reference point that
registers the appropriate "utiles," but does not count for anything independent of
his monitoring function.61 It also produces moral requirements that can
trample an individual, if necessary, to maximize utility, since once the net
effects of a proposal on the maximand have been taken into account, the
individual is expendable. Counting pleasure and pain equally across individuals
is a laudable proposal, but counting only plea sure and pain permits the grossest
inequities among individuals and the trampling of the few in furtherance of the
utility of the many. In sum, utilitarianism makes the status of any individual
radically contingent. The individual's status will be preserved only so long as that
status con tributes to increasing total utility. Otherwise, the individual can be
discarded.