BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US has established an unjust system of unequal relationships in order to exploit developing countries.

While Western Europe and Japan may have been awarded a privileged position in the international order the US constructed following the end of World War II, developing countries were incorporated as “subordinate elements in the global capitalist system.”[32] The global South has in effect been controlled and exploited through nominally multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and WTO, which are designed in a way that provides wealthy countries with de facto control. The United States has also set up a “hub and spoke” system to deal with subordinate states, which is built around bilateralism, client states, ‘special relationships’, and patronage-oriented foreign policy, which serves to translate America’s power advantage into concessions from other states.[33] When subordinate states have failed to comply, they have often faced US intervention—from Guatemala, to Iran, to Chile, to Iraq. Through this system of unequal relationships the US has gained access to markets for its corporations, and enjoyed geopolitical and political control of key strategic areas. Developing countries on the other hand have often faced economic stagnation, food crises, and various attacks on their sovereignty. [32] Bello, Walden (2005). Dilemmas of Domination: The Unmaking of the American Empire, (London), pp. 153. [33] For an elaboration of how a “hub and spokes” system works, see Ikenberry, John G. (2004), “Liberalism and empire: logics of order in the American unipolar age”, Review of International Studies, 30, pp. 609-630
The US had led the world through consent rather than coercion.

An important part of the liberal international order the US maintains is that power is diffused and is based on negotiation, strategic bargaining and the exercise of power through mutually-agreed rules and institutions. Globalization and the liberalization of the global economy has been actively supported by many nations in the world, some of whom—such as China, Japan, and Germany—have even used it to compete economically with the United States. Other states have also enjoyed significant decision-making powers in international institutions. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions are made on the basis of a ‘one country, one vote’ system.[4] This consensus-based exercise of power has provided the US with a relatively large degree of legitimacy in world opinion, often outstripping the global approval ratings of other major powers.[5] [4] Ikenberry, G. John. “Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order”, Foreign Affairs, March/April (2004), 144-156 Mark Beeson & Richard Higgott (2005), “Hegemony , Institutionalism and US Foreign Policy : theory and practice in comparative historical perspective” Third Word Quarterly , Vol.26, No. 7. [5] Gallup, ‘Worldwide Appeal of U.S. Leadership Tops Major Powers’, March 24, 2011. http://www.gallup.com/poll/146771/worldwide-approval-leadership-tops-major-powers.aspx, Accessed 12th May 2011.
Where the US has used military force, it has largely done it to uphold human rights and international peace, security and prosperity.

Examining the use of American military power following the end of the Cold War shows us that the United States has pursued an agenda of tackling serious threats to international peace, security and prosperity—whether they emanate from rogue states and sponsors of terrorism, oppressive dictators, or war criminals. Humanitarian interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently Libya highlight the importance of these considerations to America’s military strategy, and the willingness of the US to put aside narrow geopolitical interests in order to pursue humanitarian goals, to the benefit of much of the world.[10] America’s military dominance and ‘command of the commons’ (sea, space and air) has also allowed it to provide global collective goods and to maintain an open international order, which is vital to international prosperity.[11] [10] Rieff, David (2003), “Liberal Imperialism”, in Andrew Bacevich (ed.), The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, (Chicago, 2003) [11] Posen, Barry R. “Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony”, International Security, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Summer 2003), pp. 5-46.
The US has used its power to undermine the sovereignty of other nations, often through coercion and violence.

While the US does have a long history of intervening in various countries across the globe, this has mostly been in response to genuine threats to national security, international peace, and basic human rights in line with the UN Charter. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new global discourse has emerged where state sovereignty is no longer regarded as absolute in instances where states endanger international peace and commit human rights abuses.[22] Post-Cold War US interventions (Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) have largely followed this discourse. Thus, rather than malignly intervening in other countries, the US has relatively benignly sought to apply pressure on violent and dictatorial regimes, with international law and the will of the international community being central to many of the actions taken. The carefully undertaken Libyan intervention demonstrates this. [22] Annan, Kofi (1999), ‘Two concepts of sovereignty’, The Economist, 18th September 1999. http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/kaecon.html, Accessed 16th May, 2011.
Free trade is good for development and growth.

Free trade does not benefit everyone equally. Rich corporations from developed countries are not interested in growth in developing nations; they are interested in making profits. They just view developing nations as sources for cheap labour and materials, that can be harnessed more easily, due to low levels of environmental and labour regulation. For example, the so-called Maquiladoras in Mexico, which were put in place by NAFTA were rife with labour and environmental violations[1]. Therefore, free trade agreements between rich and poor countries can trap developing nations in the economic cycle as raw material providers, thus preventing them from developing their own national industries.   [1] Human Rights Watch. ”Mexico’s Maquiladoras. Abuses Against Women Workers.” 16 August 1996. http://www.hrw.org/news/1996/08/16/mexicos-maquiladoras-abuses-against-w...
Multilateralism is preferable to bilateralism.

Latin American countries do not have the same interests to protect. There are high disparities within the region itself. It would be naïve to believe that Brazil, a country of nearly 200 million people who recently overtook the UK as the world’s 6th largest economy, and Haiti, that has 10 million people and one of the lowest GDPs in the world, have the same national interest to protect. Even among richer South American nations, there are differences. Brazil tries to protect its industry from American competition while Argentina is strongly against farming subsidies. A country like Brazil will not necessarily stand up for those most vulnerable in the region at the negotiating table.
Trade is good for democracy.

The US has a long history of toppling unfriendly regimes in Latin America and propping up dictators who were agreeable to the US, from Panama to Nicaragua. This has made the people of Latin America very mistrustful of any American intervention in their politics and economy. In fact, many South American leaders see the FTAA as another attempt by the US at imperialist expansions in their continent. This would give them more reasons to rally around Chavez rather than isolate him.
FTAA is bad for labour in developed countries.

Employers will always pay a premium for workers who have the necessary education, technical and language skills that are needed to do the jobs that insure the companies’ financial success. Such workers would be primarily sourced from developed countries, which have the education systems required to educate them. Meanwhile, there are numerous low skill, menial jobs that find no takers, even during high unemployment. Bringing in workers from abroad that would be willing to do those jobs and pay taxes would be mutually beneficial for everyone involved in the exchange.
Free trade is good for development and growth.

Free trade essentially removes barriers for companies to do business across countries and regions. This leads to competition between countries in those regions, and between companies and industries in those countries. It leads to the sharing of innovation, drives down the cost of production, and allows workers to move freely where their labour and skills are needed. This is good for all those involved in the transaction. It is good for companies, because they have more resources and markets at their disposal, good for consumers, because competition between companies drives down prices and drives the innovation that improves products, and it is good for workers, because they have greater opportunities to find employment for their labour and skills[1].   [1] DanBen-David, Håkan Nordström, LAlanWinters. “Trade, Income Disparity and Poverty”. World Trade Organization. 1999. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres00_e/pov1_e.pdf
Multilateralism is preferable to bilateralism.

It is preferable for Latin American countries to band together when negotiating trade deals with the US and Canada, to better protect their interests. After FTAA negotiations failed, the US focused on bilateral strategies and trade deals where the imbalance of power was much greater in favour of the US, and it therefore could more easily dictate terms of the agreement that were detrimental to the interests of the developing country. For example, El Salvador, who is a member of CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement), together with only five other Central American countries, has found itself under legal attacks by foreign investors when it refused to lower its environmental standards in the gold mining industry[1]. Having an emerging global power, like Brazil, be part of the agreement, would counterbalance US influence over the terms.    [1] Gallager, Kevin. “Stop private firms exploiting poor states.” The Guardian. 5 February 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/05/el-salvad...
Trade is good for democracy.

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has been making sustained efforts to boost his influence in Latin America, with regional tours and substantial investments in neighbouring economies, fuelled by Venezuela’s oil money[1]. He is staunchly anti-American and a supporter of Iran. Meanwhile, he has been restricting freedom of speech in his own country, has done away with presidential term limits, and has essentially proven himself as yet another Latin American dictator in the making. If the US hopes to counterbalance his influence, it needs to become more economically connected to Latin America. Showing that the United States is willing to trade fairly with Latin America would undermine his message. This would not only be the case for the United States as it would also allow Brazil and other successful democratic Latin American states to boost their influence.   [1] Carroll, Rory. “Chavez Opens His Wallet Wider to Boost Latin American Influence.” The Guardian. 9 August 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/aug/09/venezuela.internationalnews
The FTAA is bad for industries in developing nations.

This agreement would put farmers and workers in some of the world’s most impoverished nations in direct competition with some of the richest companies in the developed world. FTAA would have small, domestic industries in countries like Bolivia or Haiti compete with massive American corporations, and prevent their governments from aiding them in any way. The disparity of power and resources would be so great in the case of such a collision, that it would mean these small industries could easily be wiped out and never develop to a level where they can sustain a healthy national economy and become competitive against giant multinational corporations. This would be disastrous for development and poverty reduction in South America[1].   [1] Robinson, Mary. “Free Trade Area of the Americas: Latin America Deserves Better.” New York Times.  18 November 2003. www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/opinion/18iht-edrob_ed3_.html?scp=1&sq=
The FTAA is bad for South American Agriculture.

During the FTAA negotiations, the US has consistently refused to eliminate subsidies for American farmers[1]. Because of subsidies, great agricultural surpluses are produced that are then sold on developing markets at prices lower than the cost of production. Farmers in places like Brazil or Argentina, who are much more efficient in their process of production but do not benefit from subsidies, could not compete with these low priced imports, either locally or on the American market. Farmers would soon go out of business.   [1] Marquis, Christopher. “Panama Challenges Miami as Free Trade Headquarters.” New York Times. 11 November 2003. www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/world/panama-challenges-miami-as-free-trade-h...
FTAA is bad for the environment.

Free trade creates a "race to the bottom", whereby developing countries lower their labor and environmental standards in an effort to attract foreign investment. Developed countries, which may have higher standards, are then forced to lower them as well in order to make sure companies don’t relocate or outsource their jobs abroad[1].   [1] Hassoun, Nicole. “Free Trade and the Environment”. Environmental Ethics, Vol. 31. http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1353&context=philosophy
FTAA is bad for labour in developed countries.

Liberalizing the labour market across the entirety of the Americas would be a severe blow to workers in the US and Canada. It would put them in direct competition with workers from countries where the average salary is much lower than in the US, who would be willing to work for a fraction of what a US or Canadian worker currently makes. In order to stay competitive in such a market, they would have to accept lower salaries and a cut in benefits. This would reverse decades of progress in the direction of better protections for workers and workers’ rights, as well as lead to higher unemployment levels in developed countries[1]. This has occurred as a result of previous free trade agreements in the Americas for example the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) after it was implemented resulted in the displacement of 682,000 US jobs[2] this then gives employers a chance to reduce working conditions as there is surplus labor.   [1] Suroweicki, James. “The Free-Trade Paradox.” The New Yorker. 26 May 2008. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/05/26/080526ta_talk_surowiecki [2] Scott, Robert E., “Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA”, Economic Policy Institute, 3 May 2011, http://www.epi.org/publication/heading_south_u-s-mexico_trade_and_job_di...
The head of state/government must be accountable to the people

Secrecy in relation to the leader’s health shows a distrust or distain of the electorate. Not being open about health issues almost invariably means that the administration is lying to those who elected them, those who they are accountable to. A couple of days before John Atta Mills died Nii Lantey Vanderpuye a candidate for Mills’ party stated “He [Mills] is stronger and healthier than any presidential candidate”, information that in retrospect was clearly untrue.1 1 Takyi-Boadu, Charles, ‘Confusion Hits Mills’, Modern Ghana, 21 July 2012, http://www.modernghana.com/news/407375/1/confusion-hits-mills.html
The people are interested in the health of their leader

The health of the leader of the state is an issue that the people and the media inevitably want to know about. There will always be a lot of interest in it. Occasionally this can be played by the administration as with Kissinger saying he was ill and using time to fly to Beijing to arrange for Nixon’s visit without press attention. But most of the time keeping things from the press is purely negative; it drives rumors. This was the case of John Atta Mills, people were not allowed to know about his health. The presidential staff and communication members constantly lied about his health but there were two reports that he had died. Mills spent time in a US hospital, on returning to Ghana, he was made to jog around the airport to show the media that he was healthy.1 1 Committee for Social Advocacy, 'Who and what killed President John Evans Atta Mills?', Modern Ghana, 13 August 2012, http://www.modernghana.com/news/411220/1/who-and-what-killed-president-john-evans-atta-mill.html
Transparency allows citizens to choose for a healthy leader as to ensure proper functioning

The health and fitness of a leader is a vital issue when choosing a leader; the electorate deserves to know if they are likely to serve out their term. When health conditions are hidden from the people they may mistakenly elect a leader who is unable to serve a full term or is at times not in control of the country. There would be little point in voting for a leader who will often not truely be in charge of the country, if voters are told it becomes their choice whether this is a problem. Transparency in terms of clear, accurate and up-to-date information is necessary for the electorate to judge the fitness of a leader which is a necessary precondition for election. In a democracy a leader needs to be accountable, he can only be accountable if the elctorate knows such vital information.
A lack of transparency can endanger the leader

A person is most likely to survive when they have an accident, a heart attack, or some other condition if they get prompt treatment and doctors are aware of any underlying conditions. Mills may well have lived, or lived longer if there had been more transparency about his death. There had been no prior warning that the president might be rushed to hospital despite the doctors having been called in the previous day. For the same reason his outriders were not available leading to indecision over whether to send off the ambulance. And finally he was initially turned away from the emergency ward because they did not know it was the President they were being asked to treat.1 Transparency would allow procedures to be in place and advance notice given possibly gaining a few minutes and enabling survival. 1 Daily Guide, ‘How Mills died: Sister tells it all’, My Joy Online, 31 August 2012, http://edition.myjoyonline.com/pages/news/201207/91359.php
Denial of privacy to the leaders

The leaders of states deserve privacy in exactly the same way as anyone else. Just like their citizens leaders want and deserve privacy and it would be unfair for everyone to know about their health. Leaders may suffer from diseases such AIDS/HIV or embarrassing illnesses which could damage a leader. The people only a need for the people to know when the illness significantly damages the running of the government. The government can function on its own without its leader for several days; only if the illness incapacitates the leader for a long period is there any need to tell the people. Clearly if the President is working from his bed he is still doing the job and his government is functioning. William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister of Great Britain was toasted as 'the Saviour of Europe' while he was seriously ill but still running the country during the height of the Napoleonic Wars.1 1Bloy, Marjie, 'William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806)', Victorian Web, 4 January 2006, http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/pitt.html
Rivals could misuse the opportunity

While the leader suffers from an illness, rivals can use the opportunity to ease the leader out of office. A period of illness is a period of vulnerability in which the government is less able to respond to external and internal threats. Not telling the public about the leader's health during an illness helps prevent such attempts. The same is the case with a leader's death; a few days of secrecy allows for smooth succession as the appointed successor has the time to ensure the loyalty of the government, army and other vital institutions. In 2008 when General Lansana Conte of Guinea died power should have been transferred to the president of the National Assembly Aboubacar Sompare with an election within 90 days. Instead a group of junior military officers took advantage of the quick announcement to launch a coup.1 1 Yusuf, Huma, ‘Military coup follows death of Guinea’s President’, The Christian Science Monitor, 23 December 2008, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2008/1223/p99s01-woaf.html
Markets like stability

Business and the markets prize political stability. Clearly when the leader of a country is ill this stability is damaged but the damage can be mitigated by being transparent. The markets will want to know how ill the leader is, and that the succession is secure so that they know what the future holds. Secrecy and the consequent spread of rumour is the worst option as businesses can have no idea what the future holds so cant make investment decisions that will be influenced by the political environment. Leaders do matter to the economy; they set the parameters of the business environment, the taxes, subsidies, how much bureaucracy. They also influence other areas like the price of energy, the availability of transport links etc. It has been estimated that “a one standard deviation change in leader quality leads to a growth change of 1.5 percentage points”.1 The leader who follows may be of the same quality in which case there will be little difference but equally it could mean a large change. 1Jones, Benjjamin F., and Olken, Benjamin A., 'Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and Growth Since World War II', Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 2005, http://economics.mit.edu/files/2915
Damages diplomacy to be too open

Diplomacy can be very personal; diplomatic initiatives are often the result of a single person, and the individual leader is necessary to conclude negotiations. Transparency about a leader's health may therefore prevent deals being done; Nixon went to China despite Mao's ill heath meaning the supreme Chinese leader contributed little to the historic change in diplomatic alinements.1 Would such a momentous change in alignment have been possible if both the Chinese and American public knew about Mao's ill health? The Americans would have considered any deal unreliable as they could not be sure it was Mao who made the decision, while opponents in China could have argued that it was advisers like Zhou Enlai who made the deal not Mao himself potentially enabling them to repudiate or undermine the deal. 1Macmillan, Margaret, Seize the Hour When Nixon met Mao, John Murray, London, 2006, p.76
The people are interested in the health of their leader

The media always want a good story; they are interested in the health of celebrities when there is no clear reason why they should have any right to this private information. The health of the leader is not something that the press or public needs to know about unless it is an illness that is likely to affect the president’s capacity to make decisions. A government’s decision should not be based upon the possibility that information on the leader’s health will leak and should take a consistent line that it is a private matter or provide a bare minimum of information.