Yes, the United States should require that other businesses do more to protect the rights of workers and the environment they operate. All of the countries that are members of their union are responsible for ensuring that all international labor and environmental standards and laws are adhered to, as well as that all international ecological rules and regulations are adhered to and obeyed. If we keep in contact with those who do not comply with the guidelines, such individuals will not be allowed to resign as a result of our interactions with them. If these countries do not get preferential treatment in this way, it will be easier to sanction those who do not comply with environmental and labor rights rules and regulations in the future.
Following the public’s desires, it is expected that what will take many necessary steps to guarantee that workers’ rights are protected and that significant changes will be made to trade practices by these countries and their businesses (Bovaird, 205). According to President Jimmy Carter, who established the Carter administration and made human rights a priority in US foreign policy, people in the United States despise apartheid and racial discrimination. According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, they favor majority rule in South Africa. As a consequence of the pressure from progressive Democrats in Congress and the anti-apartheid movement, Carter decided to impose tighter economic sanctions on South Africa and a prohibition on American corporations from engaging in the fight. In the end, Carter consented to all of the deal’s provisions. Each of these behaviors did not sit well with his sense of morality and his understanding of what was right and wrong.
We must protect workers’ rights with great attention to guarantee that a varied working environment is maintained. As a consequence of the variety of the workforce in the United States of America, companies in other countries take steps to guarantee that their employees review any trade advantages available in the United States of America (David, 17). Not only did these principles serve as a model for American companies that chose to remain in South Africa and resist the divestment movement by taking additional steps to improve the living conditions of non-white employees, but they also served as a model for companies that chose to remain in South Africa and resist the divestment movement by taking additional steps to improve the living conditions of non-white employees Many of the nation’s leading corporations signed the “Statement of Principles for United States Firms with Affiliated Entities in the Republic of South Africa” in 1977, pledging their support for the government in the face of economic sanctions and divestment resolutions against it.
To achieve several different purposes throughout many decades, the United Nations Security Council has utilized a range of other penalties to attain those aims. As a result of the present crisis, economic and commercial sanctions have been applied and more targeted measures such as visa restrictions and weapons embargoes, among other things. Sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council to preserve human rights have enabled both humane transitions and illegal regime changes to take place due to the use of sanctions. In a 1978 resolution passed by the board of trustees of Michigan State University, the administration argued for the expulsion of significant Michigan-based firms from their operations in South Africa. The university administration was the driving force behind the resolution. General Motors and Ford, on the other hand, both declined to participate. As an alternative, they supported the Sullivan Principles, which are meant to bring about change in South Africa and are already implemented. A stipulation in the agreement said that if Dow Chemical did not contribute to Michigan State University, the other party was extorting money from them.
For businesses to stay in operation for an extended period, it is vital to protect the rights of employees, protect the environment, and guarantee that the company is profitable. When a government takes steps to defend workers’ rights while simultaneously preserving the environment, the general public will see the government’s activities as environmentally friendly due to these efforts (Compa, 663). As part of putting this policy into action, the government may collaborate with companies to ensure that they can change their operations to preserve the safety of their employees while also addressing concerns about long-term viability. The New York Times reported in 1983 that, as the anti-apartheid movement gathered steam, many people started to declare their opposition to apartheid on a national basis. According to General Motors and Ford Motor Company, the company’s presence in South Africa resulted in the government’s apartheid policies being amended due to the company’s existence. The business also said that it had worked carefully to alter and adapt South African norms and customs, principally via a real commitment to the Sullivan Principles, which are at the core of its goal.
Bovaird, Public–private partnerships: from contested concepts to prevalent practice. International review of administrative sciences, 70(2019).), 199-215.
Compa,.”Enforcing international labor rights through corporate codes of conduct.” Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 33 (2019): 663.
David Cortright. “Economic Sanctions and human rights: part of the problem or part of the solution?.” The International Journal of Human Rights 1.2 (2021): 1-25.