A short time ago, the WTO met in Cancun, Mexico. The meeting collapsed without an agreement because poor countries wanted the U.S. to reduce government subsidies to American farmers so they could compete with them in agriculture. This attack, led by Brazil, was also against European agricultural subsidies.
What was the response of Bush's Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick? He said he was going to work on bilateral agreements with individual countries. Sounds like what any great competitor will do: divide and conquer. It surely does not imply, as we constantly proclaim, that we have the interests of poor countries in mind when we push "free trade."
Let's go to Europe. Europe did not like it when Bush slapped tariffs on steel. They complained to the WTO and won. They then told Bush that unless the tariffs are rescinded they would add restrictions on American products, especially those produced by politically sensitive states. We are awaiting Bush's reply.
While we are waiting, Bush sets textile quotas on imports from China. Another form of "free trade."
Bush loves "free trade" so much he wants to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) that includes all countries in the Americas, except for Cuba. This is what the meeting in Miami this week is all about.
He wants to make FTAA a bigger NAFTA. But listen to this. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says that Mexico's agricultural sector has lost 1.3 million jobs since the NAFTA agreement was reached in 1994. Furthermore, more poor Mexicans are fleeing across the border to the U.S. than before.
Again, Brazil is leading the opposition. It says the cards are stacked in favor of multinational corporations. Unless U.S. gives a break to poor countries, negotiations will probably fail again.
What does Brazil, as well as the other countries, want? "Free trade." They want Bush to reduce tariffs and other restrictions on their goods.
Personally, I do not believe there is such a thing as "free trade." For example, I cannot see any American president advocating the reduction of farm-belt subsidies. No Congress would go along. If we cannot do this, we cannot give poor countries what they want most. So let's drop the hypocrisy about "free trade."
Let's talk about "fair trade." By "fair trade" I mean that instead of imposing our ideas and our priorities on trading partners, we listen to them and help them develop their economies THEIR way. We must make sure each trade partner benefits equally. We must also prevent powerful multinationals from imposing their will on weaker trading partners.
President Bush: Forget about "free trade" that produces more enemies than friends; practice "fair trade" that makes more friends than enemies.
