Keith,
I think you are being a little unfair to the poor old Neanderthalers who
did, after all, last about 100,000 years, but disappeared about 35,000 years
ago, perhaps because we moved into their habitat and either drove them to
extinction or absorbed them into our own species. During their long sojourn
on Earth, they must have dealt with a considerable variety of environmental
changes.
As to your main point, I too favour free trade. The problem I see is that
it has rarely if ever existed. Historically, trade has been anything but
free. Much of the wealth of today's rich world is based on the colonization
and systematic exploitation of the poor world. Empires were founded on gold
from the Americas, spices from Asia and slaves from Africa. It is true that
trade goods also flowed from the rich world to the poor, but the bargains
were highly unequal, like obtaining Manhattan Island for a few beads.
Currently, large multinationals are not interested in free trade, but in
obtaining cheap resources and cheap skilled labour. While it is true that
poor countries benefit, as southern India has from high tech, the objectives
nevertheless remain exploitative.
In order to have real free trade, you would need to define and establish in
international law that most elusive of all concepts - the level playing
field. As one can see from examples like the European Union and NAFTA, this
is not easy to do even for countries which are similar in form of
government, standard of living, etc. It would be far more difficult for
countries as different as those of Western Europe and Southeast Asia or
Africa. So, good luck in promoting free trade, but please do recognize that
you are favouring something that may be about as difficult to achieve as a
world without sin.
Ed Weick
> 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]
> ________________________________________________________________________
