>Brad, we're arguing at cross purposes. If the bill with were merely lower
>tariffs, you would be correct. If the bill is going to be used to impose
>neoliberal policies, then I would strenuously oppose it.
Shoddy argument.
As written, the bill offers countries a choice: do whatever is
required to get certified as a country moving toward a market economy
and get substantial market access; or don't get certified and don't
get any of the quota relaxations and tariff reductions. "Neoliberal
policies" get "imposed" only if the governments of the countries
themselves decide that the game is worth the candle.
Yes, many governments of African countries are undemocratic; many are
dominated by cruel elites; many should be overthrown immediately.
Yes, African countries should be offered a better menu of choices
than the bill offers them. But whether the principal effect is to aid
or harm African development--and whether they ought to accept or
reject their package--ought to be *their* choice. You want to make
that choice for them, and restrict their options.
One thing that the statist old-socialist tradition never, never
learned was that to narrow somebody's options is in general not to do
them a benefit.
