Havachat: Free, fair or foolish? The Australian-US FTA - Day 3

Doug

From: Alan Oxley
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2003 17:30
To: Doug Cameron
Subject: Benefits to developing economies

Doug,

I am glad you have reverted to the question of the global benefit of free trade and open markets. You express the classic view of the anti-globalisation movement: "Social and community rights" are more important than growth based on market economies, and free trade.

You assert that opposition to an FTA from civil society is growing in Australia. As far as I can see, those who oppose free trade are those who have opposed the FTA. It's yourself, Sharan Burrows, Malcolm Fraser, the Socialist Workers Party, Oxfam, Pat Ranald's small network of community groups, and the Greens of course. You were all there on day one and are still there.

You all had a chance to show how much public support you had when the WTO Ministerial meeting was held in Sydney last October. The rally in Hyde Park mustered about 500 - at least half were there to protest refugee policy. The media for the week was dominated with discussion about free-trade issues, and clearly the public were unconvinced by the case against. There is a very good reason why this should be: that case is heartless and selfish.

The civil society groups you refer to have the arrogance to claim they represent the interests of the world's poor. They do not.

Bahrun Mitra, the Head of the NGO Liberty Institute in New Delhi came to Sydney for the meeting and observed that none of the groups he saw on the streets in Sydney were known or active in India. Like you, they argue that poor countries must not have free trade, that the WTO must be changed so trade can be used as an instrument to force their social standards on developing countries.

You call it "Fair" trade. That is classic double speak. It was coined by US unions to block imports from poor countries, particularly garments, on the grounds it was not "fair" that garment workers in India or Bangladesh were not paid the same as US garment workers.

I was at the Doha WTO meeting late in 2001. As it wrapped up, Greenpeace, Oxfam, etc were telling the media the world's poor had been sold out, while the governments of the world's poor were inside celebrating the beginning of a negotiation to reduce global trade barriers.

This free-trade agreement will advance the case for giving countries the chance to lift themselves out of poverty. Growth is stalled in much of Asia and Latin America. The former communist countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, lead by Russia, all want to use free trade to lift standards of living. It is why they are queueing to join the WTO.

Prospects are bleak for the WTO negotiations because Jacques Chirac refuses to allow the EU to consider opening Europe's markets for agriculture. A free-trade agreement between Australia and the US that demonstrates how countries can work together to remove impediments to economic activity will serve to show others what can be done.

You make a deal of the question of scrutiny and transparency. Of course any agreement must be seen and judged for what it does. Those who complain that it is being done in secret are exaggerating the point. My experience with government is never to wait for them to get around to telling you. Go and find out yourself. We do. It works.