practices will be counter to the sovereignty of that state. In no way should a business be allowed to, “ . . . [dis]respect the aims, goals, and directions of a host country’s economic and social development and its cultural and historical traditions . . . Nor should they interfere in the internal political affairs of host countries through improper political activities, political bribes, or questionable payment of any kind made to political candidates or public officials.” (EDB 579)If firms were to conduct their affairs in such manners, it can easily be seen that they are not respecting a nation’s sovereign rights and, as such, will be opposing one of its fundamental rights as a nation.The other notion is that of cultural relativism. Ultimately, it is accepted that what is believed to be morally correct by a certain culture is actually morally correct for that culture (EDB 526). In other words, what may be considered “right” for the citizens of the United States may not be regarded as “right” for the people of a country such as Indonesia. In essence, no country’s morals are “better” than those of another country (EDB 527). Being that the ability to do business in foreign nations should be considered a privelage endowed on them by those countries (as it is obviously not a right), multinational firms should be considerate of the ideologies natural to these markets.ConclusionsFrom a personal examination of these two modes of foreign business policy, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to conduct international commerce is to blend certain parts of each ethical argument. Like most people’s initial reactions, I also believe in the autonomy of foreign governments and their rights to only permit businesses to conduct their affairs in ways which are consistent with the host nation’s domestic ethics and morality. There is a limit to this way of think...
