Posted on 09/10/2001 3:34:58 PM PDT by It'salmosttolate
The best way to combat world poverty is to increase trade.
Special report: globalisation
Jack Straw
Monday September 10, 2001
The Guardian
A banking collapse in south-east Asia causes the closure of a factory in Scotland, the internet allows a doctor in Uganda to receive instant access to expensive medical journals, while the turnovers of such companies as Microsoft and General Motors dwarf the wealth of nations.
These changes generate fear and awe in equal measure. In Genoa, we saw what happens when these spill over into anger. Yet if we want to avoid future summits being held behind barricades, we need to do more to engage those interested in dialogue - and win back people's faith in politics and politicians' ability to make a difference to globalisation.
Attempts to manage change on a global level are in their infancy. But the emergence of a global economy and global society demand that we strengthen global governance.
Critics claim that the multilateral trading system has produced losers as well as winners, especially in Africa, where, south of the Sahara, average income is lower today than it was in 1971. But one of the best ways to reduce poverty in Africa and elsewhere is not to call a halt to globalisation, but to increase trade.
Many serious non-governmental organisations agree. Oxfam recently reaffirmed its support for "a multilateral rules-based trade system", but pointed out that "rich countries and powerful corporations have captured a disproportionate share of the benefits of trade". In this, Oxfam is right. But I would argue that the way to redress these imbalances is to launch a new trade round when the World Trade Organisation meets in Qatar this November. In theory, the conditions are there for every economy to exploit its comparative advantage in the global marketplace.
In practice, poor countries can often compete only in niche markets, especially agricultural ones. The barriers the EU and US have erected to protect agriculture in our own countries effectively block Africa from wider participation in the global economy. If we want to fight global inequality, we should lower these barriers, and allow agriculture to do for Africa what textiles and microchips have done for Asia.
Another criticism levelled at governments is their apparent powerlessness in the face of multinational corporations. The lure of consumer values can distort and reduce the degree to which individuals recognise the power that potentially they have as citizens, and as believers in ideas.
A global market, global brands, worldwide access to each other and to information both give us a sense of strength as consumers, and humble us before the power that has produced this situation. But democratic governments of nation states, acting collectively and internationally, represent the only way in which we can produce an effective balance between the individual as consumer and citizen.
We must do what we can to encourage corporate responsibility. But we cannot leave companies to regulate themselves globally, any more than we do in our national economies. That requires legislation. The last couple of years have seen joint action to regulate the transport and use of GM crops; to ban the production of harmful agrochemicals; and to make it a criminal offence for multinationals to corrupt public officials.
There is nothing inevitable about globalisation. It is created and shaped by the choices and decisions of us all. Since the collapse of the Soviet bloc, there is no longer a coherent alternative ideology on offer. The extremists of Genoa have no intellectual alternative beyond a return to isolationism and autarky. Afghanistan and North Korea show that for most of us, this is an unpalatable choice.
And history shows us what happens when these ideas take deeper root. When prosperity in the 1920s took a downturn, most governments responded by protecting their industries behind trade barriers. Some chose the path of totalitarianism. As a result, international trade collapsed and recession became depression, the prelude to war.
Governments face their first great challenge of the post-cold war era. If the global economy stumbles, then we will face a series of difficult choices. We could take the advice of the Stop the World campaigners, retreat into our national economies and close our markets. But this would put at risk the real benefits that globalisation, and global capitalism, have brought to millions. The right choice is to preserve and maximise the benefits while minimising the risks through joint global action; to show our citizens that politics matters and that their democratic choices have a real influence on global forces that are beyond their individual control.
• Jack Straw, foreign secretary, will be
speaking on globalisation today in
Manchester.
We are being eased into a global socialist government by this type of thinking. The US is perfectly capable of regulating trade on its own.
The alternative to global governance is simply to trade with each nation as they trade with us. If any country wants free trade with us, just do it. We don't need any stinkin' 7000 page documents to regulate it, like NAFTA has.
I could have written "FREE TRADE" on a post-it note and sent it to all the countries involved for under a $100.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.