Under a different thread, Harry Pollard and I are having what I hope is a
good-natured argument about economic matters, but there is one thing we are
in total agreement about. This is that free trade is essential for any sort
of civilised progress of mankind.
In my previous message I tried to emphasise once again that free trade in
essential resources was the key behaviour which distinguished mankind from
his cousin species, Neanderthal Man, and allowed him to start spreading all
over the world some 50,000 years ago. The evidence, so far, is that
Neanderthal Man (with, incidentally, a larger brain than Sapiens) did not
happen upon the benefits of trade and remained isolated in specific
habitats which, although having a full complement of food and other
resources at that time, became vulnerable in due course to even slight
environmental changes.
Whatever else may be said about the unique qualities of mankind, the
activity of trade between two culturally disparate groups -- who may even
hate each other on other matters -- is certainly one of them. Amazing
examples of this occurred in the Bosnian war a few years ago when Muslims
and Serbs would be fighting each other savagely one day, and trading
essential foodstuffs with each other the next. Touching examples of this
are also described in a book by which I am presently reading ("Towards the
Bitter End: the diaries of Victor Klemperer 1942-45") of wartorn Germany
when poor starving German citizens who hated Jews would nevertheless trade
essential items like potatoes, matches and false teeth (even at risk of
imprisonment or death) with their Jewish neighbours -- equally poor and
starving (and awaiting being transported to death camps) -- because both
were able to survive a little better from trading.
This persistence of trade, even when outlawed by officaldom and carried out
at great risk, suggests that it is an instinctive behaviour and we would be
denying an important part of our human nature to oppose it.
Of course, it is not only the anti-globalisation protesters who are trying
to oppose free trade, but also powerful corporations and unions within
countries like America and in the EEC who still impose high tariffs against
foodstuffs and textiles from Third World countries.
I couldn't expect anti-globalisation protesters to suddenly raise banners
with slogans like "Support free trade". But as they are mostly young and
naturally need to be seen to be against authority, they could use slogans
like "Oppose Tariffs". In this they would then be on the side of
organisations like Friends of the Earth (FoE) or Fairtrade Foundation (FT)
which are as equally concerned with the plight of the Third World as
protesters, but realise that it is tariffs, not free trade, that's the real
nasty.
Even though the aims of WTO are laudable, there is much that is wrong with
their rules so far, and I'm fervently hoping that the arguments of FoE and
FT (together with Third World negotiators) will make some headway when the
next meeting takes place in Doha. The worst thing that could happen for the
Third World, particularly at this time of world-wide recession, is that
this meeting will fail as badly as the last one in Quebec.
Keith Hudson
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
