"Clueless in Seattle"

[Carl Remick]

[The following is from the current Economist and is a fair indicator of how 
successful the WTO protests have been.  The normal tone of the Economist is, 
of course, one of supercilious detachment.  The peevishness of this piece 
shows how defensive once-complacent free-traders are at this point.]

Clueless in Seattle

It is hard to say which was worse—watching the militant dunces parade their 
ignorance through the streets of Seattle, or listening to their lame-brained 
governments respond to the “arguments”. No, take that back: the second was 
worse. At least the rioters had a good time. It was the politicians who made 
the biggest hash of things. Bill Clinton wants to invite the protesters 
indoors. France’s trade minister says here is the proof that economics and 
politics cannot be kept apart: statism lives! Britain’s trade minister 
doubtfully insists that “free trade can be fair trade”, as if to concur that 
it quite often isn’t (but never fear, he is on the look-out for any sign of 
unfairness). God help us.

Placid, even-tempered liberals (among whom we would normally count 
ourselves) will deplore our exasperation. Governments must live in the real 
world, they point out. Concerns about trade and globalisation are real, and 
can be legitimate: they deserve to be addressed. Indeed they do. So here’s 
an idea: let governments start addressing them. Let them explain that trade 
is first and foremost a matter of freedom—that if a government forbids its 
citizens to buy goods from another country it has infringed their liberty. 
(Why were there no anarchists among all those “anarchists”, by the way?) Let 
them explain that trade makes people better off, especially the poorest 
people in the poorest countries. Let them explain that trade improves the 
environment, because it raises incomes, and the richer people are, the more 
willing they are to devote resources to cleaning up their living space. Let 
them explain that the WTO is not a global government, but merely a place 
where governments make agreements, and then subject themselves to 
arbitration in the event of a dispute.

Under each of these headings, governments have not merely failed to make the 
case for free trade. They have pandered to their (unappeasable) critics, 
moved half-way to meet their demands and lent credence to their bogus fears. 
When it comes to trade, governments entertain no presumption that people 
might actually know for themselves what is best. Ever mindful of producer 
lobbies, governments downplay or deny the fact that freer trade raises 
incomes: that is why they must be on hand to ensure that trade is “fair”. 
And rich-country governments themselves have given rise to legitimate fears 
that the WTO will take on a role beyond its proper competence. Calls for the 
body to develop a new agenda on the environment and on labour 
standards—demands that will push it into matters that, at best, belong in 
other forums, and which could easily end up hurting the poorest 
countries—have come mainly from the United States. By acknowledging the need 
for such an agenda, the administration has conceded much of the ground to 
its stone-throwing critics and undermined broader support for freedom to 
trade.

“Clueless” is putting it kindly.

[end]

Carl

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com