That is why in some cases the old way of doing things thru bilateral trade agreements has a place in our trade policy. Case in point India. India is a perfect example of what you are referring to. They are moving from a third world country to a quasi developed nation of due process with a democratic tradition. India, not Europe, is the economic future. 1.2 billion people, a huge potential market, particularly as they become more affluent. They have something to offer as well as do we with 25% of the world’s wealth. Bilateral trade agreements are pegged to assure a true balance of trade between the 2 nations going forward with provisions written in to activate punitive tariffs in certain sectors to assure that the trade maintains a overall balance in the future. It is mutually beneficial because they have access to 25% of the worlds wealth for their markets while we have access to a large chunk of the world’s population that will be getting increasingly richer for out markets
I agree India has huge potential, but there are political, ethnic, religious, and cultural issues that provide a lot of roadblocks. Also, while their middle class is growing quickly, their lower class is as well. An Indian co-worker described it best when he said you can’t think of India as a country; it is more like a continent.
Just as Hispanics immigrants reduced the standard of living for blue-collar workers in the US, Indians have had the same impact on white-collar workers. It is hard to convince the average American that our relationship with India offers any benefit to the American workers.