Free Trade Impacts

7/27/2019 Free Trade Impacts

1/51

GDI Scholars 1

Free trade impacts

Free trade impacts

Free trade impacts ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

***FREE TRADE GOOD....................................................................................................................................................2

War........................................................................................................................................................................................3

War........................................................................................................................................................................................4

War........................................................................................................................................................................................5War........................................................................................................................................................................................6

War........................................................................................................................................................................................7War........................................................................................................................................................................................8

Economy................................................................................................................................................................................ 9Economy.............................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Economy.............................................................................................................................................................................. 11

Better than protectionism....................................................................................................................................................12

North/South .........................................................................................................................................................................13

North/South .........................................................................................................................................................................14

Poverty/development .......................................................................................................................................................... 15

Famine ................................................................................................................................................................................. 16

Famine ................................................................................................................................................................................. 17

South Asia ...........................................................................................................................................................................18Environment ........................................................................................................................................................................19Democracy...........................................................................................................................................................................20

Terrorism ............................................................................................................................................................................. 21Terrorism ............................................................................................................................................................................. 22

Democracy...........................................................................................................................................................................23

Democracy...........................................................................................................................................................................24

Heg....................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Racism ................................................................................................................................................................................. 26

Environment ........................................................................................................................................................................27

A2: Culture ..........................................................................................................................................................................28

***FREE TRADE BAD.....................................................................................................................................................29

War...................................................................................................................................................................................... 30War...................................................................................................................................................................................... 31

A2: Free trade solves war...................................................................................................................................................32Info-war............................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Environment ........................................................................................................................................................................34

Environment ........................................................................................................................................................................35

Monocultures.......................................................................................................................................................................36

Monocultures.......................................................................................................................................................................37

Economy.............................................................................................................................................................................. 38

North/South .........................................................................................................................................................................39

North/South .........................................................................................................................................................................40

Poverty................................................................................................................................................................................. 41Culture ................................................................................................................................................................................. 42

Culture ................................................................................................................................................................................. 43

Patriarchy............................................................................................................................................................................. 44

Food shortages..................................................................................................................................................................... 45Food shortages..................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Tobacco ............................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Democracy...........................................................................................................................................................................48

Prolif.................................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Terrorism ............................................................................................................................................................................. 50

Hurts war on terror.............................................................................................................................................................. 51


2/51

GDI Scholars 2

Free trade impacts

***FREE TRADE GOOD


3/51

GDI Scholars 3

Free trade impacts

War

Protectionism causes nuclear war

Michael Spicer, economist; member of the British Parliament, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the

West, 1996, p. 121The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II:between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring,

or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for

innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite

technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to

provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which

natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled

and unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say

that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife.Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good

step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in

the years ahead.

Free trade prevents nuclear war

Copley News Service, December 1, 1999For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war.

The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting theWorld Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations

join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict

with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of

cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear

disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest

activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of

the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or

philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people

and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters wouldprobably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past

might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economiesare built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing

China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of

the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat

of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations

benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First

of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And

those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good

jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle,

many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreigntrade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers.

Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning

to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world

peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.


4/51

GDI Scholars 4

Free trade impacts

War

Free trade ends the nationalism that drives conflicts a global body politic ensures peace

Jason Brooks, Department of Journalism at Carleton University, 1999 ed. Independent Institute Make Trade, NotWar http://www.independent.org/tii/students/GarveyEssay99Brooks.html

Different people have different solutions to war; none are as logical as free trade. The war hawks have

pursued a policy of mutual assured destruction, arguing that bigger weapons make better deterrents. Othershave argued for disarmament. While the causes of war are undoubtedly varied, protectionism clearly invites

conflict. To this, free trade is a remedy. While diplomacy is important, there can be no better diplomacy than

that which exists between common citizens of the world every day in a thousand spheres of life. The more

free trade we have, the more the invisible hand of the market helps us to, while working for our ownadvancement, create a world of peace. The wellbeing of others becomes our own. There is no reason why, in

a world of perfect free trade, people worldwide shouldn't get along as well as the citizens of the happiest,

most prosperous democracies. For in a world of free trade it matters little where borders are drawn. "Make

love, not war," was a slogan once bandied about as an answer to war. It was a catchy phrase -- and an

appealing message given the two options. But it wasn't too practical. The real solution to war, if condensed to

the size of a placard, would instead read, "Make trade, not war."

All empirical examples demonstrate that protectionism causes massive warsVincent Miller, founder and President of the International Society for Individual Liberty, and James Elwood,Vice-President of the International Society for Individual Liberty, Free Trade of Protectionism? 1988,http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism.html, accessed 1/3/03

History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot shooting wars: Europe suffered

from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries, when restrictive trade policy (mercantilism)

was the rule; rival governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets.

British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution, and later the Northern-dominated U.S.

government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports a major factor leading to the American Civil

War. In the late 19th Century, after a half century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of

peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting trade barriers. Hostilities built up

until they eventually exploded into World War I. In 1930, facing only a mild recession, U.S. President

Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. Within a year, over 25 other governments had

retaliated by passing similar laws. The result? World trade came to a grinding halt, and the entire world wasplunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. The depression in turn led to World War II.

The # 1 Danger To World Peace The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free

trade period of 1945-1970, a period that also saw no major wars. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised

around the world by short-sighted politicians. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of

these economically deranged policies? Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age? "What

generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade and foreign exchange controls,

monetary devaluation, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war."

Protectionism escalates to war

Robert McGee, professor in the W. Paul Stillman School of Business at Seton Hall University, 1994, A TradePolicy for Free Societies, p. 50

Another reason for free trade is that it enhances international cooperation. Countries that trade with each

other are less likely to go to war than are countries that erect trade barriers to prevent foreign goods from

crossing their borders. If goods do not cross borders, armies will. Trading with our neighbors is friendly and

neighborly. Peaceful exchange between individuals enhances harmony. Erecting trade barriers, resorting to

name calling and Buy American campaigns, and other forms of economic nationalism are unfriendly and

promote ill-will and discord. Military conflicts often start as trade wars, then escalate.


5/51

GDI Scholars 5

Free trade impacts

War

Free trade forces countries to negotiate rather than fight to resolve conflicts


We have shown how trade gives people freedom and creates incentives for peace. Still, a student of history

might look at the ceaseless legacy of war from ancient times to modern day and wonder if mankind isfundamentally evil. He might throw up his arms in frustration and ask, what good will trade do when it is

clear we can't get along? One of the greatest gifts of trade is that it teaches us to do just that. It teaches us to

get along. And, while this essay doesn't attempt to make any pronouncements on the fundamental goodness

of human nature, it is encouraging that where citizens live in greatest peace is where they interact on theirown terms; where they are at war is where government representation replaces civil interaction. The

fundamental reason why democracies don't fight, writes Rummel, is that they come from an "exchange

culture." This is a culture that develops "wherever there is the art of bargaining and exchange over goods,

services, and ideas." The exchange culture, by definition, breeds cooperation. "Businesses of all sorts

compete to sell their wares. There are the disputes, the broken contracts and agreements, the

misunderstandings, the fraud and abuse," writes Rummel. But the give and take of trade trains people toresolve conflicts in peace every day. Indeed, Rummel suggests one way to look at international relations

between individuals is as interacting in a state of anarchy. Despite no world government in the true sense of

the word, people still manage to cooperate and get along -- in fact they do it exceedingly well. Trade is soimportant to peace, we can see it encouraging peace in capitalist countries that aren't yet democracies.

Governments such as Chile and Taiwan before they became democracies, were not as peaceful asdemocracies, but still far less prone to aggression than autocracies. The reason is that their cultures are based

on the principle of free exchange. Free trade creates a world community of individuals working in harmony.

Common citizens replace power-driven politicians and war-driven militaries as de facto ambassadors. One

added bonus is that, while we may always have politicians, in a world where an exchange culture reigns, they

will be selected from within this exchange culture, bringing to their jobs the very inclinations to bargain and

compromise that work so well in creating peace in civil society.

Free trade brings peace by increasing the costs of waging warJason Brooks, Department of Journalism at Carleton University, 1999 ed. Independent Institute Make Trade, NotWar http://www.independent.org/tii/students/GarveyEssay99Brooks.html

Free trade is, in one sense, like a nuclear weapon. Which seems strange to say because trade is associatedwith peace and prosperity, while nuclear weapons are synonymous with apocalypse and terror. But here ishow they are alike: they both prevent war by making it more costly. A strong argument exists that the only

reason the Cold War never got "hot" between the United States and the Soviet Union was that nuclearweapons made outright conflict unthinkable. Trade, in a similar way, binds the fortunes of people in the

world together. It is the best assurance of peace. By forging bonds between customers and suppliers around

the world, trade gives citizens a vested interest in the wellbeing of people in other countries -- war becomes a

matter of mutual assured destruction, if you will. With trade, a war abroad will have fallout at home. But

while trade has the deterrent effects of powerful weapons, is far preferable because of its other advantages.

Where weapons are expensive, free trade brings prosperity and freedom. Where weapons bring terror, free

trade fosters harmony and encourages people to resolve disputes without violence. Richard Cobden, a

nineteenth century British industrialist and politician, often argued in favor of trade over armaments to

discourage war. His recipe for peace remains as true today as it was more than 150 years ago: "The more any

nation traffics abroad upon free and honest principles, the less it will be in danger of wars." Free trade isindeed the wellspring of peace.


6/51

GDI Scholars 6

Free trade impacts

War

PROTECTIONISM SPURS WAR

WASHINGTON MONTHLY, Autumn 1993, p.38.Global concern about the environment is paralleled by concern in the international trade community aboutthe impact of protectionist policies on international economic growth. Here again, the concern is profound

and goes beyond anxiety over the negative impact that protectionist policies will have on short-termeconomic growth. Instead, the trade community's concerns arise from deeply held conviction, stemming

greatly from events occurring between World Wars I and II that protectionist trade policies poison relations

between nations by lowering economic growth rates. Under Secretary of State Sumner Wells expressed this

sentiment in 1941: "Nations have more often than not undertaken economic discriminations and raised uptrade barriers with complete disregard for the damaging effects on the trade and livelihood of other peoples,

and, ironically though, with similar disregard for the harmful effect on their own export trade .... The

resultant misery, bewilderment, and resentment .... together with equally pernicious contributing causes

paved the way for the rise of those very dictatorships which have plunged almost the entire world into war."

PROTECTIONISM SPURS GLOBAL UNREST - SEVERE CONFRONTATIONS

Michael Spicer, Author of THE CHALLENGE FROM THE EAST, 1996, p.121.The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II:

between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring,

or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for

innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellitetechnology alone will ensure that consumers will begin to demand those goods that the Fast is able to provide

most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which naturalfears will be fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled andunstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that

the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a

proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good step in

the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the

years ahead,

PROTECTIONISM LEADS TO GLOBAL UNREST AND WAR

WalterMead, World Policy Institute, HARPER'S, August 21, 1993, p.44.But the protectionist option is an illusion. Because the United States is the world's leading exporter, U.S. jobs

and economic prospects depend on the continued willingness of other countries to receive our exports. We

can be certain that if we slain our doors shut, other countries will retaliate. We must also worry about war.

Closing our doors to goods from Russia, China, and India will wreck their economies and set the stage for an

era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock.

TRADE REDUCES WAR BY INCREASING COSTS

Dr. Stephen Horowitz, Free trade and the climb out of poverty, No Date Givenhttp://www.totse.com/en/politics/economic_documents/164121.html

One further benefit of free trade is that it promotes international peace. Countries who trade with one another

create mutual interdependence, which raises the cost of armed conflict. If one country depends on another for

cheap goods and services, what gain is there to a military invasion or the like? Where interdependence is thenature of the relationship, fates are tied and war makes little sense. International conflict flows out of the sort

of nationalism that results from restrictions on free trade. Just as democracies do not go to war with other

democracies, so it is that countries with open trading relationships do not go to war. Peace and free tradehave a long and storied history, and the very same thinkers who have argued for free trade, and have been

excoriated for it by the anti-militarist left, did so because they believed it would promote international

harmony and peace. The critics of free trade need to re-read both economic history and the history of ideasand realize that their opposition to free trade is likely to increase international military activity, not reduce it.


7/51


8/51

GDI Scholars 8

Free trade impacts

War

TRADE PROMOTES PEACE IN MANY WAYS

Min Ye, Department of Government and International Studies, University of South Carolina, 2001,Comparative Kantian Peace Theory: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict at a Group LevelAnalysis, http://www.cla.sc.edu/poli/psrw/MinYe1026.pdf.

Although research advances have been limited, the effects of economic interdependence on internationalpolitics have been studied decades. Theoretically, these studies can be divided into three categories according

to their different arguments regarding trade functionality in international relations. The first category, from

an interest groups perspective, argues that trade has a pacifying effect. Ruth Arad and Seev Hirsch (1981)

observe that trade can enhance peace between former belligerents by capturing the impact of trade on thestates' welfare with respect to consumers, producers, exporters and importers. Solomon Polachek (1992,

1997), Polachek and McDonald (1992) note that trade and investment serve as media for communicating

interests, preferences, and needs on a broad range of matters among trading partners. However, this

perspective fails to account for conflict over the division of costs and of gains, assumption of new risks, and

relation of new vested interests. Thus the effect of these vested interests on domestic support for peace is

indeterminate unless the government compensates the losers in economic transactions. The second categoryfocuses on the overall social welfare gains from trade (Polachek 1980, 60-62 and 1992). According to this

model, each trading nation gains social welfare benefits and therefore has a strong interest in maintaining

peaceful relations. Polachek (1980) has argued that the greater the welfare loss, the greater the costs ofconflict, and thus the smaller the incentive for conflict. However, this national-gains perspective fails to

account for some anomalies in world politics caused by the sensitivity and vulnerability of interdependence(Keohane and Nye 1989).

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT TRADE REDUCES INCIDENCE OF MAJOR POWER

WARSMark J. C. Crescenzi, University of North Carolina, 2002, Economic Interdependence and Conflict in WorldPolitics, http://www.unc.edu/~crescenz/exit/crescenzi_9_02.pdf.

Mansfield empirically analyzes this relationship between international trade and war on the systemic level.

He finds strong support for this negative relationship between trade and war, as well as support for the causal

direction of trade as an influence of war. In particular, he oncludes that international trade is inversely relatedto the incidence of wars involving major powers.

ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF TRADE ENCOURAGE STATES TO AVOID

CONFLICTS

Mark J. C. Crescenzi, University of North Carolina, 2002, Economic Interdependence and Conflict in WorldPolitics, http://www.unc.edu/~crescenz/exit/crescenzi_9_02.pdf.

Solomon Polachek has been putting together pieces of this research puzzle for almost twenty years, and he

continues to develop some of the most sophisticated arguments supporting the perspective that trade

promotes peace. The argument is grounded in the notion of conflict as an inefficient drain on economicwelfare. Trade relations emerge naturally through comparative advantage and resource allocations. Once this

trade is in place, states will avoid conflict to preserve the resulting welfare improvements. He argues,

"countries involved in more trade have on balance higher costs of conflict, and hence ceteris paribus are

hypothesized to engage in less conflict" (1978: 73). He also briefly examines the notion that states possessing

advantages or monopolies in trade markets enjoy a greater freedom to be hostile without worrying aboutreciprocation from trading partners. This would suggest that the market structure that provides context for the

trade relationship is important when studying how trade affects conflict. His empirical tests focus on the

dyadic level and the basic relationship between trade and conflict (as trade increases, conflict decreases). Theresults indicate strong support for the negative relationship between trade and conflict.


9/51

GDI Scholars 9

Free trade impacts

Economy

Protectionism causes economic collapse and war World War 2 proves the correlation

Jim Chen, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, Fordham International Law Journal,

November / December, 2000, 24 Fordham Int'l L.J. 217War, needless to say, retards trade. Although the converse proposition - that trade retards war - may be lessobvious, it happens to be the strongest noneconomic argument for free trade. Amid the devastation of World

War II, this argument was dispositive. The rules and institutions that govern international economic relations

today grew out of a belated understanding that peace cannot flourish in a world burdened by trade barriers.

The October 1929 collapse of American stock markets destroyed the twin "cornerstones of German

prosperity: loans from abroad, principally from America, and world trade." By "signing ... the Smoot-Hawley

Tariff Act into law in June 1930," Herbert Hoover committed the "most disastrous single mistake any U.S.

president [ever] made in international relations." Retaliatory tariffs helped transform a trade war into actual

military conflict; the destruction of trade accelerated a deflationary spiral that had begun with major powers'collective retreat to the gold standard. The ensuing "major world depression" energized "the nationalists in

Japanese politics and paved the way for the electoral victory of the Nazis in Germany in 1932." When at last

military victory seemed within reach, the allies convened at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to lay the

economic foundation for postwar peace. The three institutions born of that summit - the IMF, the WorldBank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (or "GATT"), forerunner of the WTO - received an

unequivocal mandate to keep the peace. By and large, the Bretton Woods institutions have succeeded. UntilNATO forces bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, Thomas Friedman's "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict

Avoidance" accurately described international relations after World War II: no two nations with a

McDonald's restaurant waged war against each other. Although the global economy would later destroy one

of Bretton Woods' most ambitious achievements - the system of fixed exchange rates for the world's leading

currencies - this peace dividend remains one of the strongest arguments in favor of free trade.

The WTO is key to world economic growth; US lead is vital.CONGRESSMAN PHILIP CRANE, Federal News Service, December 13, 1999

And the American people have not yet come to a full realization and understanding of the importance of

trade to our national growth, but the importance of trade also to other countries. It's a win-win proposition.

And we have witnessed the smaller countries of the world finally elevating to levels that they can join theWorld Trade Organization. And we've had some of the smaller countries, as you know -- most recently, I

think there were five more that have become members of WTO -- and it's a move in the right direction. Butthe -- (inaudible) -- the so-called major players are still the EU, Japan, the U.S. and Canada. And they're the

ones that have to lead the charge in the direction of moving farther down that path and with greater spirit than

we have moved thus far, and especially after what happened out there in Seattle. Now, under our ground

rules in Congress, we have to renew our personal membership in WTO every five years. That requires a vote

by Congress. Are we going to remain a member of the World Trade Organization? And we have a kind of

dicey condition today coming out of the negative that was a consequence of what happened out in Seattle.

And we have, as you know, interest, and there is representing a very small fragment -- 12 percent of our total

labor population is unionized, but they are organized, and they are organized and involved in political races,

and they will continue with a vengeance to be involved in political races, and they have their own separateagenda. And then there are others within both our Republican and Democrat parties who are simply

protectionist. I've mentioned many times I used to be a history prof before I got into politics, and historically

the Democrats were the free traders all the time and the Republicans were the protectionists. And that

prevailed until after World War II. And after World War II, we were the only industrial power left on theface of the earth, and the unions had a privileged position and they wanted to keep it. And they were the ones

that exerted paramount influence in the Democratic Party. And the Republicans, to their credit, finally

started to lift the blinders and read Milton Friedman and Von Hayek and others, and understand the

importance of free trade. But we still have Smoots and Hawleys in our Republican ranks, and you remember

they pushed through the most protectionist tariff measure in history in 1930, and that guaranteed that our

depression went worldwide and that extended until after World War II. So we still have Smoots and Hawleys

on our Republican side.


10/51

GDI Scholars 10

Free trade impacts

Economy

SLIDE INTO PROTECTIONISM CRUSHES THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

Fred Bergsten, Director of the Institute for International Economics, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, March/April,

1999, pg. LexisBoth sides now run the risk of drift and even paralysis in transatlantic trade policy -- with potentially severerepercussions for the rest of the world. A slide into protectionism or even a failure to continue opening new

markets would have a major impact on the global trading system. Could we then expect Asian economies,

who depend on expanded exports to emerge from their deep recessions, to keep their own markets open?

Would the transition economies in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Asia stick to their

liberalization strategies? With the backlash against globalization already evident everywhere, the ominous

inward-looking protectionist and nationalistic policies that the world has rejected so decisively could

reemerge once again. A failure of transatlantic leadership would make such policy reversals particularly

likely. The United States and the EU are the only economic superpowers and the only two regions enjoyingreasonable economic growth. They created the GATT system and, more recently, the WTO. Despite their

own occasional transgressions, they have nurtured and defended the system throughout its evolution over the

past 50 years. While Japan has been important on a few issues and the developing countries played an

encouraging role in the Uruguay Round, the Atlantic powers built and sustained the world trade order. Theirfailure to maintain that commitment would devastate the entire regime.

PROTECTIONISM CRUSHES THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

FINANCIAL TIMES, February 24, 1999, pg. LexisSo US officials are right to complain about the risks of global recession and the macro-economic policy

failures of Japan and the euro-zone. They may be wrong to worry about trade deficits themselves, but correct

to fear the political backlash at home these are likely to cause, particularly if the economy slowed. It is

essential therefore to develop a strategy for handling trade policy while the world economy comes back into

balance. The economic impact of trade policy is on efficiency and growth, not deficits. If the US resorted to

protection, it would merely shift the pressure on to unprotected activities, including exports, probably via

appreciation of the dollar. Protection is therefore a self-defeating response to the need to adjust to changes in

net capital flows. Policymakers understand this. The big danger, however, is that political pressures will lead

to backsliding on trade commitments that would increase uncertainty, dampen Asian recovery and underminethe health of the global economy.

FREE TRADE BENEFITS THE U.S. ECONOMY

John Sweeney, Heritage,FAST TRACK NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY: THE FACTS, August 26, 1998, p.http://www.heritage.org/library/execmemo/em549.html

The free trade agreements achieved under fast-track authority have produced tangible benefits for the

American economy. Now in its eighth consecutive year of economic expansion, the United States is the

world's largest exporter and importer of merchandise goods and services, and the largest manufacturer ofsophisticated semiconductors, automobiles, and software. The United States reports the highest productivity

and competitiveness of any economy in the world, creates more jobs each year than any other industrialized

economy, and accounts for 25 percent of all global foreign investment each year. In 1997, two-way U.S.

trade with the world--defined by the Clinton Administration as trade in goods and services plus earnings on

U.S. foreign investment abroad--totaled $2.3 trillion, or 30 percent of gross domestic product (GDP),compared with only 13 percent of GDP in 1970.


11/51

GDI Scholars 11

Free trade impacts

Economy

SLIDE INTO PROTECTIONISM CRUSHES THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

Fred Bergsten, Director of the Institute for International Economics, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, March/April,

1999, p. LexisBoth sides now run the risk of drift and even paralysis in transatlantic trade policy -- with potentially severerepercussions for the rest of the world. A slide into protectionism or even a failure to continue opening new

markets would have a major impact on the global trading system. Could we then expect Asian economies,

who depend on expanded exports to emerge from their deep recessions, to keep their own markets open?

Would the transition economies in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Asia stick to their

liberalization strategies? With the backlash against globalization already evident everywhere, the ominous

inward-looking protectionist and nationalistic policies that the world has rejected so decisively could

reemerge once again. A failure of transatlantic leadership would make such policy reversals particularly

likely. The United States and the EU are the only economic superpowers and the only two regions enjoyingreasonable economic growth. They created the GATT system and, more recently, the WTO. Despite their

own occasional transgressions, they have nurtured and defended the system throughout its evolution over the

past 50 years. While Japan has been important on a few issues and the developing countries played an

encouraging role in the Uruguay Round, the Atlantic powers built and sustained the world trade order. Theirfailure to maintain that commitment would devastate the entire regime.

PROTECTIONISM CRUSHES THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

FINANCIAL TIMES, February 24, 1999, p. LexisSo US officials are right to complain about the risks of global recession and the macro-economic policy

failures of Japan and the euro-zone. They may be wrong to worry about trade deficits themselves, but correct

to fear the political backlash at home these are likely to cause, particularly if the economy slowed. It is

essential therefore to develop a strategy for handling trade policy while the world economy comes back into

balance. The economic impact of trade policy is on efficiency and growth, not deficits. If the US resorted to

protection, it would merely shift the pressure on to unprotected activities, including exports, probably via

appreciation of the dollar. Protection is therefore a self-defeating response to the need to adjust to changes in

net capital flows. Policymakers understand this. The big danger, however, is that political pressures will lead

to backsliding on trade commitments that would increase uncertainty, dampen Asian recovery and underminethe health of the global economy.

COLLAPSE OF FREE TRADE LEADS TO RECESSIONSAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE, December 5, 1998, p. C1

According to the WTO report, written by chief economist Patrick Low, Asian exports shrank 7 percent

during the first nine months of 1997, while imports plummeted 16 percent. During the same period, U.S.

imports grew 10 percent, picking up the slack of declines in purchasing through other regions of the world. Inlight of those figures, Low wrote, "the role of the United States in sustaining global trade expansion . . . has

been very significant." Low conceded that the growing trade gaps have spurred protectionist measures, not

only in the United States but also in developing countries. But he feared that if the trade slowed, it would

hamper a recovery in Asia and, as a result, further threaten the economies of Europe and the United States."Pressing on with trade liberalization is essential to restore health to the world economy," he said. "If the

momentum in the direction of liberalization stops, recession becomes a real prospect."


12/51


13/51

GDI Scholars 13

Free trade impacts

North/South

Free trade enables developing countries to catch up

New Republic, June 22, 1998This explains why poorer countries should now like trade. It has helped lift millions of people in Europe andAsia from abject poverty. But what's in it for us? Trade can help to erode a country's relative economic

superiority, and for the United States it has contributed to such an erosion. As other countries advancedrapidly, our dominance of the early postwar decades was lost. But this history cannot be undone. To preserve

our position, we would have needed to be ruthlessly protectionist in the 1950s and 1960s: a policy that

deliberately aimed to restrain the economic progress of Europe and Japan. But this would have been unwise,

and even Buchanan does not contend otherwise. To long for our superiority of the 1940s is an exercise innostalgia. Still, what is not true, then or now, is that trade impoverishes us. It is not depressing our living

standards. It is elevating them. Trade may enable poorer nations to catch up, or to grow faster than we do; but

this does not cause us to slow down. It is not a zero-sum game. We gain, too.

North-South disparity is the primary impetus for nuclear proliferation and terrorism

Bernard Lown, MD Co-Founder, IPPNW, 1996, http://www.ippnw.org/, Crude Nuclear Weapons Proliferationand the Terrorist Threat

Nuclear apartheid cannot endure. The stimulus to proliferation derives largely from an inequitable world

order and the growing economic divide between rich and poor countries. One fifth of the world lives on the

edge of subsistence. At a time of potential abundance, more people are hungry than ever before. We end the

century with far more desperately poor, illiterate, homeless, starving, and sick than we began. Nowhere arethe inequities more in evidence than in the health sector. Eight hundred million people are without any health

care at all. One-third of the worlds population lives in countries whose health care expenditures are far lessthan $12 per person per year (the bare minimum recommended by the World Bank) while the industrializedNorth spends more than $1,000 for health per person annually. Recent UN figures indicate that from 1960 to

1990, per capita income rose eight-fold in the North while increasing only half as much in the deprived lands

of the South. This divide is likely to widen further while accelerating over-consumption in the North and

burgeoning population pressures in the developing countries. As vital raw materials, scarce minerals, fossil

fuels, and especially water become depleted, Northern affluence will be sustained by imposed belt tightening

of impoverished multitudes struggling for mere subsistence. This is an agenda for endless conflict and

colossal violence. The global pressure cooker will further superheat by the ongoing worldwide information

revolution that exposes everyone to the promissory note of unlimited consumption, there by instillingimpatience and igniting more embers of social upheaval. If desperation grows, the deprived will be temptedto challenge the affluent in the only conceivable way that can make an impact, namely by going nuclear.

Their possession enables the weak to inflict unacceptable damage on the strong. Desperation andhopelessness breed religious fundamentalism and provide endless recruits ready to wreak vengeance, if

necessary by self immolation in the process of inflicting unspeakable violence on others. A nuclear bomb

affords the cheapest and biggest bang for the buck. No blackmail is as compelling as holding an entire city

hostage. No other destructive device can cause greater societal disruption or exact a larger human toll.

Terrorists will soon raise their sights to vaporizing a metropolitan area rather than merely pulverizing a

building.


14/51

GDI Scholars 14

Free trade impacts

North/South

Globalization brings the South closer to the North


November / December, 2000, 24 Fordham Int'l L.J. 217John Rawls's difference principle poses one final obstacle. Pax mercatoria is legitimate only if it advances thewelfare of society's least advantaged class. Free trade may promote freedom and environmental quality in a

country justly described as "the Michael Jordan of geopolitics," but what does it promise beyond the shores

of the United States? Far from undermining the legitimacy of pax mercatoria, a look at the developing world

and at formerly Communist countries confirms the metaphysical benefits of international economic

coordination for nations rich and poor. Although the exact relationship between political freedom and

economic growth remains ambiguous, certain constants have emerged since Bretton Woods. Chief among

these is the recognition that neither wealth nor liberty can flourish unless private parties can realistically

expect that courts will decide cases according to reasoned law and free of interference from the politicalbranches of government. Rule of law, taken for granted in the United States and its peer nations, remains the

sine qua non for development. Perhaps no element of rule of law is as critical as an independent judiciary.

Corrupt or politically captive judiciaries impair development. The kleptocracies that have arisen in the former

Soviet Union demonstrate all too clearly how corruption in judicial administration and law enforcement canstunt growth and freedom. By contrast, the restoration of Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997 has

not drained the wealth from the former Crown Colony. The difference lies in the Chinese government'srespect for the independence of Hong Kong's judiciary, however fitfully and grudgingly China honors that

pledge. On balance, increases in wealth do enhance human rights. Economically vibrant societies tend to

adopt and maintain beneficent laws and legal institutions. Cheaper, easier communication empowers the

heretofore oppressed and dispossessed. Through these channels globalization achieves its indirect but

positive impact on political freedom. "Globalization is not only the creation of world markets andtransnational companies; it also means the extension of justice and democratic values into regions where

barbarism still flourishes."

Free trade fosters development and prosperity in poor countries

Denise Froning, former Trade Policy Analyst in the Center for International Trade and Economics at Heritage,

August 25, 2000, The Benefits of Free Trade: A Guide For Policymakers

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1391.cfm, accessed 8/24/03International trade is the framework upon which American prosperity rests. Free trade policies have created a

level of competition in today's open market that engenders continual innovation and leads to better products,

better-paying jobs, new markets, and increased savings and investment. Free trade enables more goods and

services to reach American consumers at lower prices, thereby substantially increasing their standard of

living. Moreover, the benefits of free trade extend well beyond American households. Free trade helps to

spread the value of freedom, reinforce the rule of law, and foster economic development in poor countries.The national debate over trade-related issues too often ignores these important benefits.

Free trade puts money into North and South economies

London Business School Economic OutlookFeb 1998There are a number of important policy implications arising from our research. First and foremost we have

provided theoretical underpinnings that support policies aimed at increased economic integration of the world

economy. In particular, we have established two mechanisms by which openness increases growth andwelfare for both the North and South. The first is through specialization and trade, which sees the North

devoting more resources to innovation R&D research. The second is through knowledge spillovers which

enable the South to progress into higher phases of development. When the South starts to innovate thisresults in world growth increasing further. In our model, and others of this genre, knowledge capital is a

public good. It follows that the level of private investment in R&D, which adds to the stock of knowledge of

capital and drives growth, is socially sub-optimal. There is therefore a role for governments to provide publicsupport for R&D.


15/51

GDI Scholars 15

Free trade impacts

Poverty/development

Free trade boosts the economy, ending poverty

Johan Norberg, Frontier Centre for Public Policy, The Benefits of Globalization, A Speech to the Frontier

Centre, April 28, 2003, http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=575, accessed 8/23/03The West grew rich in the 19th and 20th century because people here had the rule of law, property rights, thefreedom to start a business and the freedom to trade. And because we had a free market, people and

companies had to think of new and better ideas, and get more efficient in what they did otherwise

consumers would turn to someone else. The market encourages and rewards long term investments in ever

better production. This is what happened in Sweden. Even if you had levelled out all property in the middle

of the 19th century, it would still have given everybody a life in poverty, of the levels of todays

Mozambique. Instead, Sweden was saved by liberalisation. In a few decades, a couple of classical liberal

politicans gave Sweden religious liberty, freedom of speech, and economic liberty, so that people could start

their own business and buy and sell freely on the market. Free trade made it possible for Sweden to specialisein what we did best, such as the timber and iron industries, and exchange it for that which we produced less

well, such as food and machinery. This specialisation and the competition that comes with it is still today

the rationale for free trade. The increased production gave Swedes the possibility to feed themselves. It gave

us economic growth and made it possible to increase well-being and invest in education and health care.

Globalization boosts all economies, ending povertyJohan Norberg, Frontier Centre for Public Policy, The Benefits of Globalization, A Speech to the Frontier

Centre, April 28, 2003, http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=575, accessed 8/23/03I have made up my mind, I hate poverty, I dont hate wealth. I want the poor and starving to get chances and

a decent life. If millionaires became billionaires in the process, thats not a problem. Therefore, I love

globalisation, the process which is lifting the poor towards wealth. Because it spreads markets, technology

and ideas to parts of the world where it didnt exist before. Hard facts shows that it works. As UNDP hasnoted, during the last 50 years, global poverty has been reduced at a quicker pace than it had been in the 500

years before. In the last 30 years, the average income in developing countries has been doubled. In only the

last two decades, the proportion in absolute poverty that is people with an income below $1/day has been

reduced from 31 to about 20 per cent. During that time, world population has grown by 1,5 billion people,but we have still seen a reduction in the numbers of absolute poor, with about 200 million people. Never

before in world history have we seen such a dramatic betting of the human condition. The world is notimproving thanks to economic redistribution. Its improving thanks to economic growth. If we have 3 per

cent growth per annum, this means that the economy, our capital and our incomes double every 23 years. If

growth is twice as fast, these things double about every 12 years. This is an unparalleled growth of

prosperity, compared with which even vigorous government measures for the redistribution of incomes take

on a puny aspect. And not just puny, but downright dangerous, because high taxes to finance these measures

can jeopardise growth. If so, great long-term benefits for everyone are sacrificed for small immediate gainsfor a few.

FREE TRADE INCREASES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Denise H. Froning is Trade Policy Analyst in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The

Heritage Foundation, 2001 (2001 (PRIORITIES FOR THE PRESIDENT,http://www.heritage.org/mandate/priorities/chap14.html)

An analysis of the economies of 161 countries published annually by The Heritage Foundation and the WallStreet Journal in the Index of Economic Freedom demonstrates that free trade policies encouragedevelopment, raise the level of economic freedom, increase prosperity, and reinforce political freedoms.25Every day in the marketplace of free countries, individuals are able to make choices and exercise direct

control over their own lives. Establishing the backbone of the rule of law, with property rights and free-

market policies, is an essential step in creating the sort of market stability that foreign investors seek


16/51

GDI Scholars 16

Free trade impacts

Famine

Free trade ends food shortages, and keeps prices stable

Indur M. Goklany, Julian Simon Fellow at the Political Economy Research Center, August 22, 2002,http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa447.pdf, accessed 5/3/03

Because it is always possible to have local food shortages in the midst of a worldwide glut, the importance of

trade should not be underestimated. Currently, grain imports amount to 10 percent of production indeveloping countries and 20 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa. Without such imports, food prices in those

countries would no doubt be higher and more people would be priced out of the market. In essence,

globalization, through trade, has enhanced food security. And in doing so it has reduced the severe health

burdens that accompany hunger and undernourishment.

Blips in food prices kill billions

Tampa Tribune, 1-20-96On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not abundant. In 1995, world

production failed to meet demand for the third consecutive year, said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the

International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an

average of 17 percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season,

he said. That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersen noted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the

United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security. During the food

crisis of the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. "Even if they are merely blips, higher

international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food," he said. "Risingprices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a

dollar a day or less." He also said many people in low-income countries already spend more than half oftheir income on food.

Food shortages lead to World War III

William Calvin, theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, The

Great Climate Flip-Flop, Vol 281, No. 1, 1998, p. 47-64The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some

powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid

and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countrieswould attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significantremaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the

same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could

lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt

cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe

has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do

so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.


17/51

GDI Scholars 17

Free trade impacts

Famine

FREE MARKET POLICIES EMPIRICALLY INCREASE HUNGER AND POVERTY

AROUND THE WORLD

Food First, June 28, 2001, Myths of the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement,http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/ftaamyths.html

Myth: Free trade can end hunger if governments will just get out of the way. Reality: Free market policies

exacerbate hunger and poverty around the world. For example, Chile's free market experiment increased

poverty from 17% to 45% from 1973 to 1990. In Mexico since NAFTA 8 million people dropped out the

middle class into poverty. Government involvement is needed to allocate resources and distribute goods

needed to ensure that the weakest citizens have the right to food and food producing resources.

TRADE LIBERALIZATION WILL INCREASE FOOD PRODUCTION AND REDUCE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Wesley Nimon and Uptal Vasavada, Economic Research Service, USDA, Agricultural Trade Policies in the

New Millennium, 2002, eds. Kennedy and Koo, p. 118One study finds that multilateral trade liberalization will shift food production away from the developed

countries toward LDCs that use more labor and less potentially polluting chemicals. This shift will not,

however, price changes. Because of increased worldwide allocative efficiency, trade liberalization willincrease income, which will further lessen environmental degradation from farming (Anderson, 1992).

TRADE LIBERALIZATION WILL INCREASE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

WITH LITTLE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Wesley Nimon and Uptal Vasavada, Economic Research Service, USDA, Agricultural Trade Policies in the

New Millennium, 2002, eds. Kennedy and Koo, p. 118A more recent OECD study indicates that trade liberalization would cause agricultural prices and production

intensity to decrease in those countries that have historically had chemical-intensive production practices. In

those countries where pesticide and fertilizer usage has been historically low, and hence better able to

accommodate increased agricultural intensity, there would be increased application rates. CorroboratingAndersons earlier work this study concludes that trade liberalization will only have modest impacts on

agricultural land use. Although the effect is projected to be small, increases in the total ruminant livestockherd might lead to some increases in greenhouse gas emissions (OECD, 2000).


18/51


19/51

GDI Scholars 19

Free trade impacts

Environment

Globalization destroys the localism that is at the core of all environmental problems


November / December, 2000, 24 Fordham Int'l L.J. 217Freedom to travel also has an environmental dimension. Aggressive environmental protection safeguards thefreedom of movement by severing decisions to travel or to move from variations in environmental quality.

The same Commerce Clause that protects trade among the states enables Congress to address environmental

problems that affect multiple states or otherwise impair the movement of goods and persons in interstate

commerce. This connection becomes all the more critical in an era of unprecedented constitutional pressure

on federal environmental law. Civil liberties of the first order wither when the ordinary citizen "must be

afraid to drink freely from his [or her] country's rivers and streams." In this sense, official complicity in

environmental degradation violates the international human rights norm against "arbitrary ... exile."

"Across-the-board globalism" is the best way of coordinating free trade and environmental protection as"complementary" policies. Admittedly, simultaneously advocating free trade and environmental integrity

typically earns a deluxe suite at the "very small hotel" that will be hosting the next "global convention of

rabid free trade environmentalists." Yet this jarring juxtaposition is unavoidable in a world of falling

frontiers. The creation of "transboundary communities" causes "environmental interconnection" and in turnthe "inevitable" abandonment of "localism in all spheres." Strictly localist solutions will not suffice;

"haphazard local encouragement" cannot replace coordinated responses to "diffuse, cross-jurisdictional"problems such as mobile source emissions and nonpoint-source runoff. Environmental integrity as a human

right, so central in the localist critique of globalization, is more effectively advanced by free trade than by

protectionism. In the absence of clearly defined, consistently enforced trade rules, "environmental standards"

rapidly become "especially attractive candidates for disguised protectionism." Standards as vague as

multifunctionality or sustainability are "far more susceptible to political capture" than specific andtransparent environmental measures. Perhaps no controversy depicts this dynamic as vividly as the

transatlantic tussle over beef from hormone-fed cattle. One attractive alternative to parochial, intrinsically

protectionist measures lies in the adoption of uniform global standards. That project, however, presumes a

continued commitment to integration rather than isolation in matters affecting the global economy and theglobal environment.


20/51


21/51

GDI Scholars 21

Free trade impacts

Terrorism

Free trade addresses terrorism at its root

BrinkLindsey, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at Cato, Free Trade and Our National Security,

December 5, 2001, http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/articles/bl-12-5-01.html, accessed 8/24/03President Kennedy was no less forceful in linking free trade and national security. World trade is more thanever essential to world peace, stated the 1960 Democratic Party platform. We therefore must resist the

temptation to accept remedies that deny American producers and consumers access to world markets and

destroy the prosperity of our friends in the noncommunist world. Kennedy put those words into action with

his 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which made possible the breakthrough Kennedy Round of world trade

talks. He praised the legislation as an important new weapon to advance the cause of freedom, since a

vital expanding economy in the free world is a strong counter to the threat of the world communist

movement. In the wake of September 11, the national security dimension of trade policy is once again

plainly visible. It is now painfully clear that Americans live in a dangerous worldand that the primarydanger at present emanates from the economic and political failures of the Muslim world. Those failures

breed the despair on which violent Islamic extremism feeds; no comprehensive campaign against terrorism

can leave them unaddressed. Market opening in the Muslim world is desperately needed. Trade and

investment barriers are pervasive, and exports other than oil remain puny. Its true that scrappingprotectionist policies, by itself, will not guarantee economic revitalization. But the fact is that integration into

the larger world economy has been central to every developing-country success story of recent times.Exposing the economy to foreign competition and capital acts as a catalyst for more systemic reforms. And

over the longer term, such far-flung examples as Chile, Mexico, Taiwan, and South Korea demonstrate the

interconnectedness of globalization, economic dynamism, and eventual democratization.

Biological terrorist attack would spread and eradicate the population of the entire world

John Steinbruner, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, chair of the committee on international security

and arms control of the National Academy of Sciences, Foreign Policy, December 22, 1997That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a

singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay

rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead isdetonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of

radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of apathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For

most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively

enough tobe an effective weapon. But for a fewpathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and

therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other

direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of

initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its

outer limit.


22/51

GDI Scholars 22

Free trade impacts

Terrorism

FREE TRADE REDUCES TERRORISM

The Washington Post, December 5, 2001, Bolivian President Says Free Trade is Best Answer toTerrorism, http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/bolivia/bolivia-quiroga.htm

"The fight for freedom and the fight against terrorism has two facets," he said. "Terrorists target not only our

freedom of democracy but also freedom of trade. . . . The more products, the more freedom of trade, the moreglobalization, the better." The president said a new inter-American agreement on terrorism is being drafted

by the Organization of American States and will be ready in two to three months.

EXPANDING TRADE WITH MUSLIM NATIONS WILL REDUCE TERRORISM

BrinkLindsey& Dan Ikenson, Cato Institute, August 5, 2003, Trade Policy Analysis No. 24, The TradeFront: Combating terrorism with open markets, http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-024es.html

In May 2003 President Bush announced plans to create a U.S.-Middle East free-trade area within a decade.

The new trade initiative aims to combat terrorism, and the Islamist extremism that underlies it, by promoting

economic and political development in the Muslim world. The administration moved quickly to begin putting

its plans into action by announcing that the United States and Bahrain would soon commence negotiations

for a free-trade agreement (FTA). Meanwhile, negotiations for an FTA with Morocco are already under way,

and a U.S.-Jordan FTA, now in its second year, has produced a boom in Jordanian exports. The Bush

administration should be congratulated for opening a trade front in the war on terrorism. With the proper

commitment and follow-through, a major U.S. trade initiative in the Muslim world can give real

encouragement to desperately needed growth and reform in that troubled region.

EXPANDED TRADE WITH MUSLIM COUNTRIES WOULD REDUCE TERRORISM

Christian Science Monitor, September 9, 2003, How trade impacts US jobs and the war on terrorism,http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0909/p02s02-usfp.html

Lindsey argues that the connection is so evident that the US should consider granting duty-free market access

to a list of Muslim countries. Winning the war on terrorism depends on cooperation from the countries where

it breeds, these experts say, so the US will have to act in ways that make other countries want to make the

fight theirs - and that's where trade policy comes in. "When it comes down to it, we're asking these countriesto take steps to save our people's lives," says Carnegie's Perkovich. "To get that cooperation, it's only normal

that they would expect us to do the things that they think will save their lives."

GLOBAL TRADE WILL REDUCE TERRORISM

Ted G. Fishman, contributing editor of Harper's Magazine and a former currency trader. HARPER'S

MAGAZINE, August 2002, p. 33That global trade will defeat terror seems axiomatic. Where countries scuttle restrictive laws, allow people to

launch businesses, and otherwise prepare for an ever freer world economy, peace will follow. New York

Times columnist Thomas Friedman summed up the thesis as the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict

Prevention," the mostly true observation that countries with McDonald's restaurants do not wage war against

one another. "Let's not kid ourselves," Secretary of State Colin Powell explained last fall to a Washington

audience that included representatives of several African nations. "Business is business, and capital, money,

is a coward. It is drawn to places which have the rule of law, places where there is an accountability of

government, educated healthy workforces, secure working conditions. Capital will flee--money will flee from

corruption, bad policies. It will flee from conflict. It will flee from sickness."


23/51

GDI Scholars 23

Free trade impacts

Democracy

GLOBALIZATION THREATENS DEMOCRACY

Chahine Ghais, Notre Dame University, 2001, Globalism and localism: changing our political understandingof sovereignty and democracy, PALMA Research Journal, Vol. 7, Issue 1,http://www.ndu.edu.lb/academics/Palma/vol7is1a10.html

Globalism and Localism influence state sovereignty at two opposing levels. They attract power and authorityaway from the state upwards to the international/global level through economic and ecological integration,

while they detract state control downwards to the national and ethnic constituents. The state, especially in

heterogeneous societies, is left in a very defensive position trying to maintain its basic role as the main

organizer and protector of civility in human societies. Democracy is threatened by globalization due to thelatters overwhelming forces of economic uniformity and cultural homogeneity that deprive the local peoples

of their freedom of choice and sovereign participation in indigenous political institutions. Localism threatens

democracy through its continuous intercommunal conflicts, minority oppression, and genocide. While

recognizing that developing societies are affected more negatively than advanced societies by globalism and

localism, the paper concludes that states remain, for the foreseeable future, the only viable organization

capable of providing peace and democracy.

FREE TRADE PROMOTES DEMOCRACYDenise H. Froning is Trade Policy Analyst in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The

Heritage Foundation, 2001 (2001 (PRIORITIES FOR THE PRESIDENT,http://www.heritage.org/mandate/priorities/chap14.html)

Free trade both fosters and is reinforced by the rule of law, and removes incentives for corruption. It also

transmits ideas and values, advancing a culture of freedom that can become both the cornerstone and

capstone of economic prosperity. Consider Taiwan's success in achieving economic--and thence political--

freedom. It clearly suggests that if China opens its market, economic and political freedoms will have a real

chance to develop on the mainland as well. The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has been one of the

world's fastest growing economies--in the 1990s, its growth rate was a stunning 11 percent. In the years

following its establishment in 1949, the ROC had an inefficient and overregulated economy. In the late

1960s, however, the government began to institute reforms. It guaranteed private property and set up a legal

system to protect it, reformed the banking and financial sectors, stabilized taxes, gave public lands to privateindividuals, and allowed the free market to expand. These policies launched Taiwan, one of Asia's famous

"tigers," into the industrialized world.


24/51

GDI Scholars 24

Free trade impacts

Democracy

Free trade demolishes tyranny and the accompanying civil conflicts that kill millions


We now turn to another powerful benefit of trade: how it undermines tyranny. Undermining tyranny is

important for two reasons. First, as mentioned, democracies are less likely than autocracies to makeinternational violence. Second, and perhaps more important, weakening autocratic governments fosters peace

within countries by protecting citizens from the violence of their own governments. While international war

is horrific, deadlier still are conflicts inside the borders of nations. And deadliest of all are the prolonged,

often covered-up wars waged by governments against their own citizens. When considering how free tradebrings peace, it is important to focus not just on how it prevents international violence but also how it

prevents domestic slaughter. To give an idea how the body counts stacks up, Rudolph Rummel offers some

statistics. From 1900 to 1987, the war dead in the world from civil and international conflicts totaled

38,500,000. This giant figure is dwarfed, however, when we look at the mass murder committed by

governments on their own people: at least 169 million killed, by Rummel's count, in the first 87 years of the

20th century. This includes the approximately 21 million people murdered by the government of NaziGermany and the 55 million of its own citizens the Soviet government killed. Many other governments,

including China, Cambodia and Japan have murdered millions or hundreds of thousands. Free trade helps to

foster peace by transferring power away from governments into the hands of citizens. Free trade is closelylinked with a number of other personal freedoms, including the right to hold private property, that are

prerequisites for democracy. How does free trade empower people? Free trade -- either at home or abroad --largely implies that people can do what they want. They may coordinate and interact with whom they choose,

they may buy what they can afford and sell what is theirs. Control gained by citizens over their own actions

is, by corollary, control lost by government. In a pure state of free trade, people may migrate freely between

nations. It is not for nothing that totalitarian countries build walls to keep their citizens from leaving and erect

barriers to trade. If trade had been free, citizens of the former Soviet Union could have simply left. Millions

would have enjoyed more prosperous lives elsewhere; millions would have escaped the slaughter of thetotalitarian state. Under open borders, the Soviet government would have had to tailor is policies to appeal to

the masses or else run out of people to govern due to mass emigration.

Free trade encourages democracy


A free trade in ideas lets citizens import cultural products of their choice, including movies, books and other

literature that weakens tyranny by spreading messages of democracy and freedom. Free trade on an internalscale allows citizens to circulate these materials amongst themselves and organize their labor into activities

that promote democracy. While free trade, or an even wider definition of capitalism, doesn't guarantee

democracy, trade is closely linked to democracy. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman writes that "I know of no

example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that

has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of its economic activity." Free

trade and democracy are, it seems, on a continuum and they move together. Any amount of free trade detracts

from the power of the government and increases the power of common citizens. The greater the extent of this

power shift, the greater a country moves from tyranny to a state of democracy, a state that is most friendly to

peace at home and abroad.


25/51

GDI Scholars 25

Free trade impacts

Heg

Free trade secures US hard power

Dr. Gerald P. O'Driscoll, Jr., former Director of, and Sarah Fitzgerald, Trade Policy Analyst in, the Center

for International Trade and Economics at Heritage, December 18, 2002, Trade Promotes Prosperity and Securityhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1617.cfm, accessed 8/24/03

It is fitting that economic freedom be included as part of the national security strategy. A strong economy

undergirds a strong national defense, and the strong U.S. economy is one source of the military strength of

the United States. The national security strategy also argues, however, that the economic strength of other

friendly countries will enhance U.S. security. Economic freedom sustains economic growth and wealth

creation. Free markets foster the spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation that creates new products and jobs.

This creative economic process in turn generates higher incomes, savings and wealth creation, and economic

development in nations.According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, for instance, the North

American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round together "generate annual benefits of $1,300-$2,000 for the average American family of four."8 Such benefits equal more than $100 per month and would

greatly assist struggling families throughout the world. According to a World Bank study, "growth generally

does benefit the poor as much as everyone else, so that the growth-enhancing policies of good rule of law,

fiscal discipline, and openness to international trade should be at the center of successful poverty reductionstrategies." Chapter VI of the Administration's national security strategy describes the process succinctly:

"Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth Through Free Markets and Free Trade." Specifically: Astrong world economy enhances our national security by advancing prosperity and freedom in the rest of the

world. Economic growth supported by free trade and free markets creates new jobs and higher incomes. It

allows people to lift their lives out of poverty, spurs economic and legal reform, and the fight against

corruption, and it reinforces the habits of liberty.

US leadership prevents global nuclear exchangeZalmay Khalilzad, RAND, Washington Quarterly, Spring, 1995

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a

global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding

principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the

United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment wouldbe more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.

Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems,such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts.

Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United

States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global

nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a

multipolar balance of power system.


26/51

GDI Scholars 26

Free trade impacts

Racism

Protectionism is racist

Denver Post, November 17, 1997But when it comes to the free trade debate, the intellectual case for protectionism was destroyed more than acentury ago by economist David Ricardo's "law of comparative advantage." Let's assume a simple economy

in which I grow apples while you grow oranges. If you're as tired of your orange juice as I am of my applepies, we can both live better if I swap some of my excess apples for your surplus oranges. The protectionist

argues that this trade is OK if we both live in the same country. But put a fence between our properties and

call you, say, "Mexico," and the protectionist will claim I should cut down some of my apple orchards and

convert them into orange groves to be "self-sufficient" and avoid giving U.S. dollars to foreigners. Of course,those dollars are just pieces of paper that are worthless unless they eventually return to this country to buy

U.S. goods and services, thereby bringing back the jobs that were supposedly "exported" in the or

Free Trade Impacts

Documents