The good news is that the US and the EU recently agreed on agricultural trade in advance of the Sept. 10 to Sept. 14 WTO meeting in Mexico. The bad news is that the agreement is more of the same old stuff. And, as a result, it is viewed by developing countries as a betrayal and perhaps as reason to give up on globalization and the West's promises about free trade and prosperity.
The Western countries say they have agreed to reduce tariffs against foreign farmers and subsidies to their own. But they don't say by how much, on which goods, or when. And the deal contains this convenient phrase: "Without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations." In other words, anything goes.
That's an approach that could doom globalization, which has already brought a better life to much of the world. In the last two decades, more than 200 million people have been lifted out of absolute poverty thanks to liberal reforms and increased barrier-free trade. A recent World Bank report concluded that 24 developing countries with a total population of 3 billion are integrating into the global economy more than ever. Their per capita growth has increased from 1 percent in the 1960s to 5 percent in the 1990s. At the present rate, the average citizen in these developing countries will see his income doubled in about 15 years. Imagine how that will strengthen the demand for rich world exports.
But many countries have been left behind because the liberalization of trade during the last 50 years has not included two sectors: textiles/garments and agriculture. Those are the labor-intensive goods poorer countries can produce and sell at competitive prices. In manufacturing, the volume of trade has risen 45-fold since the end of World War II. But in agriculture it has risen only six-fold.
In 1995, the EU and the US promised to abolish all quotas that restricted exports of textiles and clothing from poor countries. But to date, the EU and US have killed quotas only on goods that developing countries do not export, such as parachutes -- yes, parachutes. Many doubt that rich countries, after 10 years of stalling, have the courage to abolish these quotas come January 2005. When developing countries talk about the need to discuss "implementation issues" in the WTO negotiations, it's their polite way of saying: "Will you please stick to your promises?"
Contrary to popular perception, the 1999 trade meeting in Seattle didn't fall apart because of protests. It collapsed because developing countries faced demands for environmental and labor standards without getting, in return, increased market access. If that happens in Cancun, developing countries may drop out of the trade talks. This would be a shock to the multilateral trade system. And it could end the wave of economic and political liberalization that has made life better in many parts of the world.
During the last century, many developing countries followed inward-looking, anti-liberal policies because they couldn't tap into the world market. In the early 20th century, Latin American countries such as Argentina and Uruguay were among the richest in the world because of their agricultural exports.
But in the 1930s, the US and Europe reintroduced protectionism. In turn, Latin American countries turned to import substitution and state-led industrialization, and to a succession of military dictatorships.
Those policies gave Latin America a temporary economic boost after the World War II -- but the country ran on outdated technology and insufficient market access. In the end, these nations wound up poorer. They accumulated huge debts, which still affect the world economy. And, in Africa and Asia, many states that weren't welcome in the Western markets fell into communism and all its errors.
Some of the same is happening today and many poor countries feel betrayed. They were promised progress if they liberalized. But when they did, they weren't allowed access to the world economy. We dumped our subsidized goods in their countries. But they weren't allowed to export their goods to us. Brazilian President Lula da Silva has said that all his country's efforts and exports are useless "if the rich countries continue to preach free trade on one side and practice protectionism on the other side." South African President Thabo Mbeki has said that there is a real threat of famine in Africa, because of Western protectionism: "It remains an inexcusable shame."
We do not make friends with these double standards. Instead, anti-American and anti-Western movements surface. According to polls, globalization and trade are popular with the world's poor, but the rich countries and their policies are unpopular. So, in the end, many will dismiss the free market because they never see it in practice.
Johan Norberg is a young Swedish writer and leading activist in the debate on free trade and globalization. His latest book is In Defense of Global Capitalism.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
RSS