I don't think we should discuss Ray because there's not a lot to be learned from him. or, at least, what might be learned is so obscured by the imputation of base motive to all players that we find it too difficult to get at what might be useful.
I think an area of western foreign policy it would be useful to look at because it does have an effect on many lives in lesser developed countries and relatively little effect on us in N America and Europe is trade policies.
The effect, for instance, of N American and European agricultural policies on agriculture in lesser developed countries is profound and negative. The barriers against textiles produced in less developed countries lowers living standards there and increases costs here.
I don't think poverty abroad has much to do with terrorism, which has occupied our thread discussion so much, and lots to do with politics of repression which does connect trade policies with other grievances most of which have little to do with the west generally, or the US particularly. We've spent quite a bit of time on politics of repression and that's a good thing, I think, but "globalization", or liberalization of trade can't work well if rewards of participation are skewed, or if many can't participate at all.
My estimate, for what it's worth is that exterior liberalization of trade is only possible in a limited way while interior terms of trade aren't also liberalized. One mirrors the other. Interior free markets make exterior ones possible. For instance agricultural subsidies limit interior free market, pose a barrier to imports, and damage agriculture in lesser developed places. (They also encourage use of marginal land with attendant ecological damage). Thus "globalization," which would lead to greater all round prosperity, is impeded.
Questions: do freer markets lead to less repressive governments? Anyone know of any work done on this?
The action of lobbyists in developed countries does lead to trade barriers. Has anyone ever quantified the effect?
Should diplomats be shilling commercial projects in lesser developed countries? I don't know - obviously if it's a bad project (Enron's in India) it's a bad idea, but generally?
I think this is a hot topic, but worth pursuing. The project of modernity, which the West is pursuing, is bound up in liberal trade, in exchange of ideas, in personal mobility, in freedom generally. It has it's enemies as you know; some deliberately so, others accidently.
This is kind of mushy, anybody want to tighten it up? |
