Is it worth it?

The following editorial appeared in yesterday's WSJ:

Yet at Doha, all of this wasn't enough to defeat the protectionists. The media spin of the moment is that this shows the rising power of the developing world. But the real dividing line in the world economy isn't this updated version of the North vs. South 1950s cliché. The real battle is between those who want to expand this era of global trade and prosperity, and those who want to carve out their own protected niches.

The latter seems to include Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath, who is the main villain in this week's failure. He preened as a Third World hero by refusing to open his country further to farm imports, insisting on a "special safeguard mechanism" that would have let countries jack up their tariffs if imports rose too rapidly. He claimed this would protect the "livelihood of millions of farmers" in India. But the rise of India's middle class has coincided precisely with the move of millions from the countryside to cities, as well as India's growing engagement with the world economy. More Indians will stay poorer longer because of his obstinance.

The U.S. political class also bears a substantial part of the blame. In its waning months, the Bush Administration has less power to persuade. But part of that weakness goes back to the original trade sins of its first two years. With its steel tariffs and overstuffed farm subsidy bill of 2002, the Administration sent a signal that domestic politics took precedence over U.S. global trade leadership. Its credibility never recovered.

I submitted the following letter in response:

Like many others, I was unhappy to hear of the recent failure of the Doha trade round (again) (“The End of Free Trade?”, July 31), but we shouldn’t be so quick to lay the blame (the “main villain”) at the feet of other countries. The U.S. is a nation that knows the benefits of trade, both for producers and consumers. We should be willing to assume international leadership on the issue of free trade by adopting these kinds of multilateral agreements, flaws and all, even when they don’t appeal to the mercantilist sentiment currently running through our country. If India wants to increase tariffs on farm imports, who are we to say it’s wrong to protect domestic agriculture, with our “do as I say, not as I do” policy of trade negotiations? We all know how lower barriers to imports are a boon to domestic consumers because of lower prices and greater product choices. If India were to increase farm tariffs and cut themselves off from these benefits, causing some pain for our already subsidized farmers, is that worth the gains available to us, them, and all other developed and developing nations from a more open world trade environment? Obviously it is to the negotiators. But don’t count me among that group.

Matt Hutchison
Atlanta, Georgia