As a full-fledged, bona-fide veteran of the '60s, I confess it makes my blood run to see a demonstration.
But why on Earth demonstrate about trade?
The Battle in Seattle over the WTO has become surreal. International trade is now the whipping boy for such agonizing social concerns as child labor and environmental degradation, and the WTO, a buildingful of otherwise life-needing technical wonks, has been turned into a secret cabal that fell out of some UN helicopter with plans to fluoridate our water.
Is trade the source of the misery of child labor? Of course not. Most child labor in the Third World is employed in primitive agriculture and service jobs that are yet worse than the manufacturing jobs that trade regulation would affect. It's absurd to argue that, absent trade, those children would somehow be better off. Do you want to improve their lot? Help their societies to grow, by giving them debt relief, development assistance, and greater access to our markets.
Is trade the source of environmental degradation? Of course not. China has turned itself into an environmental monstrosity with minimal help from trade. Brazil, now rapidly hacking down its irreplaceable rain forest, has done so purely on its own initiative. The idea that, absent trade, the world's poorest countries would opt for a pastoral, pristine poverty is as ridiculous as the idea that we can unilaterally set their standards for them. Do you want global sustainable growth? Ratify the Kyoto climate change accord, make sustainability a higher consideration in development funding, and push the frontiers of appropriate technologies.
And then there's the WTO itself, which was set up to resolve trade disputes that often have their roots in what we would call domestic policies. It doesn't make rules, but it enforces rules that governments - including ours - freely pass laws agreeing to abide by. Should we turn it into a global environmental cop, or worldwide child welfare case worker? Of course not. Instead, let's face up to the reality that today's world offers us no corner - there are fewer and fewer “domestic policies” in the world today. We need to build and strengthen international institutions that help us resolve these conflicts, not burden them with requirements they'll never be able to fulfill.
There are some folks who don't like trade. Trade creates growth, but also brings change - some folks win and some folks, unfortunately, lose. For someone losing a job in a mill or foundry, trade can be a curse. It is entirely legitimate to demand that we address their needs. But hiding that concern behind the image of a five-year old kid sewing sneakers somewhere in Asia does neither the concern, nor the kid, any good.
Comments