Planet Debate Free trade bad 

Free trade bad
Free trade bad ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 ***FRONTLINE ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Free trade bad 1NC – War ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Free trade bad 1NC – North/South ................................................................................................................................ 4 Free trade bad 1NC – Tobacco ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Free trade bad 1NC – Food shortages ............................................................................................................................ 6 Free trade bad 1NC – Culture ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Free trade bad 1NC – Democracy.................................................................................................................................. 8 Free trade bad 1NC – Environment ............................................................................................................................... 9 Free trade bad 1NC – Economy................................................................................................................................... 10 Free trade bad 1NC – Prolif ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Free trade bad 1NC – Terrorism .................................................................................................................................. 12 Free trade bad 1NC – Monocultures ............................................................................................................................ 13 ***WAR ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14 War .............................................................................................................................................................................. 15 War .............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Militarism .................................................................................................................................................................... 17 A2: Free trade solves war ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Protectionism Didn’t Cause WW2 .............................................................................................................................. 19 Info-war ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20 War on terror ............................................................................................................................................................... 21 ***ECONOMIC .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 Economy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Local economies .......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Wages .......................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Poverty......................................................................................................................................................................... 26 North/South ................................................................................................................................................................. 27 North/South – debt....................................................................................................................................................... 28 A2: Universal Levels Of Growth ................................................................................................................................. 29 IMF/World Bank Bad .................................................................................................................................................. 30 IMF/World Bank Bad .................................................................................................................................................. 31 IMF/World Bank Bad .................................................................................................................................................. 32 Rich/poor gap .............................................................................................................................................................. 33 ***POLITICAL/SOCIAL ........................................................................................................................................... 34 Neo-colonialism/mercantilism ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Culture ......................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Food shortages ............................................................................................................................................................. 37 Food shortages ............................................................................................................................................................. 38 Culture conflicts .......................................................................................................................................................... 39 Patriarchy..................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Patriarchy..................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Agency......................................................................................................................................................................... 42 A2: Racism .................................................................................................................................................................. 43 ***ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 44 Monocultures ............................................................................................................................................................... 45 Environment – general................................................................................................................................................. 46 Environment – regulations........................................................................................................................................... 47 Environment – transportation ...................................................................................................................................... 48 Environment – resource exploitation ........................................................................................................................... 49 Environment – invasive species................................................................................................................................... 50 ***NO IMPACT ......................................................................................................................................................... 51 Trade wars don’t escalate ............................................................................................................................................ 52

1

Planet Debate Free trade bad 

***FRONTLINE

2

Planet Debate Free trade bad 
Free trade bad 1NC – War
Trade interdependence causes war George Friedman, founder and chairman of Stratfor, and Meredith Friedman, The Future of War, 1996, p. 79 The argument that interdependence gives rise to peace is flawed in theory as well as in practice. Conflicts arise from friction, particularly friction involving the fundamental interests of different nations. The less interdependence there is, the fewer the areas of serious friction. The more interdependence there is, the greater the areas of friction, and, therefore, the greater the potential for conflict. Two widely separated nations that trade little with each other are unlikely to go to war—Brazil is unlikely to fight Madagascar precisely because they have so little to do with each other. France and Germany, on the other hand, which have engaged in extensive trade and transnational finance, have fought three wars with each other over about seventy years. Interdependence was the root of the conflicts, not the deterrent.
There are, of course, cases of interdependence in which one country effectively absorbs the other or in which their interests match so precisely that the two countries simply merge. In other cases, interdependence remains peaceful because the economic, military, and political power of one country is overwhelming and inevitable. In relations between advanced industrialized countries and third-world countries, for example, this sort of asymmetrical relationship can frequently be seen. All such relationships have a quality of unease built into them, particularly when the level of interdependence is great. When one or both nations attempt, intentionally or unintentionally, to shift the balance of power, the result is often tremendous anxiety and, sometimes, real pain. Each side sees the other’s actions as an attempt to gain advantage and becomes frightened. In the end, precisely because the level of interdependence is so great, the relationship can, and frequently does, spiral out of control. Consider the

seemingly miraculous ability of the United States and Soviet Union to be rivals and yet avoid open warfare. These two powers could forgo extreme measures because they were not interdependent. Neither relied on the other for its economic well-being, and therefore, its social stability. This provided considerable room for maneuvering. Because there were few economic linkages, neither nation felt irresistible pressure to bring the relationship under control; neither felt any time constraint. Had one country been dependent on the other for something as important as oil or long-term investment, there would have been enormous fear of being held hostage economically. Each would have sought to dominate the relationship, and the result would have been catastrophic. In the years before World War I, as a result of European interdependence, control of key national issues fell into the hands of foreign governments. Thus, decisions made in Paris had tremendous impact on Austria, and decisions made in London determined growth rates in the Ruhr. Each government sought to take charge of its own destiny by shifting the pattern of interdependence in its favor. Where economic means proved insufficient, political and military strategies were tried.

Statistical analysis shows free trade increases the risk of war Katherine Barbieri, Department of Political Science, University of North Texas, February 1996, Journal of Peace
Research, p. 42-43 This study provides little empirical support for the liberal proposition that trade provides a path to interstate peace. Even after controlling for the influence of contiguity, joint democracy, alliance ties, and relative capabilities, the evidence suggests that in most instances trade fails to deter conflict. Instead, extensive economic interdependence increases the likelihood that dyads engage in militarized dispute; however, it appears to have little influence on the incidence of war. The greatest hope for peace appears to arise from symmetrical trading relationships. However, the dampening effect of symmetry is offset by the expansion of interstate linkages.

Free trade doesn’t cause peace Christopher Layne, Naval Postgraduate School, World Policy Journal, Summer 1998, p. 8-28.
These arguments notwithstanding, international economic interdependence does not cause peace. In fact, it has very serious adverse security consequences that its proponents either do not understand or will not acknowledge. Economic relations (whether domestic or international) never take place in a vacuum; on the contrary, they occur within a politically defined framework. International economic interdependence requires certain conditions in order to flourish, including a maximum degree of political order and stability. Just as the market cannot function within a state unless the state creates a stable "security" environment in which economic exchange can occur (by protecting property rights and enforcing contracts), the same is true in international relations. Because there is no world government, it falls to the dominant state to create the conditions under which economic interdependence can take hold (by providing security, rules of the game, and a reserve currency, and by acting as the global economy's banker and lender of last resort). Without a dominant power to perform these tasks, economic interdependence does not happen. Indeed, free trade and interdependence have occurred in the modern international system only during the hegemonies of Victorian Britain and postwar America.

3

Planet Debate Free trade bad 
Free trade bad 1NC – North/South
Free trade results in a hemorrhage of wealth from the South to the North Julius Nyerere, former president of Tanzania, February 1990, Recolonization GATT, the Uruguay Round & the
Third World, p. 21-22 They have never heard of ‘Aid’ from the South to the North. What these innocent people do not realise is that through the workings of the present international economic arrangements, wealth flows almost all the time from the poor ‘developing’ countries of the Third World to the industrialised and rich countries of the developed world. It flows from the primary producers to the industrialised countries, from the ignorant to the knowledgeable. How could they know these things? Virtually nothing in the Northern media gives them such information. Yet that is the reality. The facts can be extracted from the statistics of all the international organisations; sometimes they are even mentioned in their Annual or Specialised Reports. Tens of billions of dollars flow every year from the Economic South to the Economic North through movements in the terms of trade which have been adverse to the underdeveloped countries almost continually since the 1950’s. The prices of primary commodities like cotton, coffee, cocoa, copper etc. etc. - which are the major export products of the Third World - go down in relation to the prices of machinery, lorries, capital investments of all kinds, and most manufactured goods. To an ever increasing extent, Third World countries sell cheap and buy dear. Wealth flows also from South to North through financial mechanisms. For example: in the last decade poor nations have found that the Interest Rates on loans they incurred earlier have been increased by their creditors without consultation. They borrow to meet these ‘obligations’. And so get further and further into debt even as they transfer huge amounts to their creditors in debt service. Again, wealth flows through the South’s purchase of knowledge - through fees for education and training, through the purchase of books, through subscriptions to vital information agencies, and through payment for the use of patents, or trade marks, or production licences. And so on. Yet the poor nations of the Third World borrow money, or buy knowledge, or produce primary products for export rather than food for themselves, in order to invest in development - in a less poor future - or to meet their basic human requirements after natural or economic disaster has hit them. It is these purposes which are frustrated when they make a net export of resources to developed countries. This they have been doing for the last six years on account of debt servicing alone, without taking into account the permanent drain constituted by the unfair trading system.

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 Proliferation
and 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 are the inequities more in evidence than in the health sector. Eight hundred million people are without any health care at all. One-third of the world’s population lives in countries whose health care expenditures are far less than $12 per person per year (the bare minimum recommended by the World Bank) while the industrialized North 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 instilling impatience and igniting more embers of social upheaval. If desperation grows, the deprived will be tempted to 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 and hopelessness 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.

4

Planet Debate Free trade bad 
Free trade bad 1NC – Tobacco
Globalization spreads tobacco, killing hundreds of millions Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director General of the World Health Organisation, “Health and Population,” 2000,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture4.stm, accessed 8/23/03 Interestingly enough, not only infectious diseases that spread with globalisation. Changes in lifestyle and diet prompt an increase in heart disease, diabetes and cancer. More than anything, tobacco is sweeping the globe as it is criss-crossed by market forces. Only weeks after the old socialist economies in Europe and Asia opened up to Western goods and capital, camels and cowboys began to appear on buildings and billboards. Those who think that tobacco-related death and disease is mainly a burden for the rich countries are mistaken. If the growth in tobacco use goes unchecked, the numbers of deaths related to its use will nearly triple, from four million each year today to 10 million each year in thirty years. More than 70% of this increase will take place in the developing countries.

5

In 1995. Vol 281. The last abrupt cooling. As a result. 47-64 The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling.C. The Great Climate Flip-Flop. Atlantic Monthly.org/publications/oct961-en. 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. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies. Among these elements the following have the most severe impacts on peoples livelihood. January. p.if only because their armies. driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. unpaid and lacking food." Blips in food prices kill billions Tampa Tribune. October 1996. 1998.but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. http://www. insecure and costly food system and undermine the ecological security of agriculture. "Even if they are merely blips.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less. said Per Pinstrup-Andersen.measured by stockpiles of grain . the livelihood security of farmers and the food security of both poor and affluent consumers. "Rising prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1. Food shortages lead to World War III William Calvin. director of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington. "India's worst famines took place when India's economy was most integrated though the globalisation of the colonial period. would go marauding. In addition they easily result in internal migration. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. before they fell apart entirely. and largely grows its own food. he said. since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security. higher international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food. world grain stocks were at 15 percent. That's troubling. D.cfm In the South.grain. No. This would be a worldwide problem -.are not abundant. We have our history". It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic. urban growth and environmental destruction: * undoing land reform and allowing concentration of land ownership * privatising water * introducing monopoly control on seeds through IPRs * diverting land from food to cash crops for exports * diverting food from local to global markets Volatile prices and globalisation are creating an unstable.and could lead to a Third World War -. 6 . the different elements of trade liberalisation often translate directly into food insecurity. the Younger Dryas." he said." He also said many people in low-income countries already spend more than half of their income on food. Pinstrup-Andersen noted. 1-20-96 On a global scale. both at home and across the borders. During the food crisis of the early 1970s. world production failed to meet demand for the third consecutive year. food supplies . It has excellent soils. "We in the South Asian subcontinent have more than the World Bank indices as our guide. drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. to take over countries with significant remaining resources. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Free trade bad 1NC – Food shortages Trade liberalization causes cycles of food shortages Seedling. theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington. 1. says Vandana Shiva.

2000. Indian physicist and activist Vandana Shiva calls it "monoculture of the mind. and spiritual values that give meaning and identity to community life and are a resource for solving the problems of everyday life. of human nature—that is crucial to the project of human survival remains separately encoded in the distinctive cultures of ethnic groups. Cultural survival is key to human survival Maivan Clech Lam. young from old and urban from rural. Africa and the industrialized world. No human community or ethnic group can construct an informed and meaningful future if it is cut off from its cultural past. material objects. And alienation from meaning. free-market ideology and carried through the massive US entertainment-industrial complex. ethnicity is both an enabling and an inescapable condition of human existence. Many societies. yet fewer than one in ten people worldwide speak the language. Visiting Associate Professor at American University Washington College of Law. Stavenhagen writes: Cultures are complex patterns of social relationships. without which they have no roots. Much more than an economic problem. 205-206 Nevertheless. There are no clear estimates of the number of artisans in the world. the Pacific Region. For many countries feeling the deadening and harmonizing impacts of economic globalization. Latin America. North American corporate culture is destroying local tradition. as much as exploited meaning. of workable social relationships. as anthropologists know. particularly indigenous peoples. Our civilization has become commercial. usually unleashed by the destructive economic and military policies of the world’s powerful states.htm Global cultural homogenization is sweeping the world. Says the Toronto Globe and Mail's John Stackhouse.globalpolicy.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Free trade bad 1NC – Culture Free trade destroys cultural diversity Maude Barlow. have tapped. At The Edge of the State: Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determination.org/globaliz/cultural/2001/1001mono. an Egyptian artisan-activist. although some crafts groups believe it is the largest employer outside agriculture." Dominated by US and Western values and lifestyles. of a specific part of it. The US has more computers than the rest of the world combined. adds. South America. expressions and lifestyles that are part of an artisan's creative environment. can lead to violence. this assault on local cultures is having a profound impact. Internet access divides educated from illiterate. It is a collective system of meaning that generates social energy which can be put to constructive and destructive uses equally. history or soul. Around the world. chair of The Council of Canadians. with little notice. Artisans groups trying to sell their products locally have been wiped out by global fashions. 7 . All our civilization has ceased to be spiritual. Autumn 2001. the latest CDs. Earth Island Journal. In China. knowledge. That some very ugly campaigns in modern history. skills.000 languages will no longer be spoken or read by the end of the 21st century. driven by a consumerbased. artisans and values. Hundreds of languages spoken today are lost each decade and it is estimated that one-half of the world's 6. American television and mass-market books." Combined with the destruction of the habitat of aboriginal citizens in many parts of the world. Hollywood blockbuster movies. Everywhere. the decline of artisanship may be consuming some of the world's older traditions and finer crafts and eroding the world's cultural diversity. protecting cultural diversity has become as important a fight as preserving biodiversity. view culture as their richest heritage. "This is an issue of identity. young people want Nike sneakers." Nawal Hassan. Its value is other than monetary. frighteningly successfully. p. To commodify it is to destroy it. http://www. rich from poor. the global monoculture has infiltrated every corner of the Earth. Michael Jordan T-shirts. Gap clothes. English is used in 80 percent of websites. Technology is also advancing one culture and one language. But it is just as undeniable that knowledge—of the universe. "With each endangered craft are centuries of songs. into ethnic energy is undeniable.

then people can really make a difference. and services. and biological weapons continue to proliferate. and more susceptible to democratic controls. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. then the evolution of health and safety standards worldwide will be stalled. and openness. p. and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. chemical. People want safe and healthy food. open. accountability. and public health. But if local and state standards can be jeopardized by a foreign country’s mere accusation that the standards are a non-tariff trade barrier. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens. a smaller jurisdiction—a town. No one denies the usefulness of international trade and commerce. property rights. accessed on 12/11/99 OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. civil liberties. with top-down mercantile dictates replacing bottom-up democratic impulses. they want recycling. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous. they want to contain soil erosion and to clean up toxic waste dumps. level. within their own borders. The very source of life on Earth.html. who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. national governments and international governments. with its provisions for legality.” http://www. 8 . Such smaller-scale operations are more flexible and adaptable to local needs and environmentally sustainable production methods.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Free trade bad 1NC – Democracy Free trade destroys democracy Ralph Nader. For it is rare that regulatory breakthroughs occur at the national. appears increasingly endangered. eventually. The Case Against Free Trade. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations. the environment. Precisely because. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. the global ecosystem. And if local or state governments can make decisions to help achieve these goals. popular sovereignty. other cities and states copy it and. or stare—experiments with a standard. Nuclear. Similarly. allocating power to lower level governmental bodies tends to increase citizen power. This percolating-up process will be squelched by GATT and NAFTA. Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict. if a company’s claim that the burden the standard would impose is so great that they would have to pick up their stakes and move elsewhere.org//sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01. and enduring trading partnerships. follow their lead. democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. they want safer. they respect competition. “Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are less likely to threaten to migrate. Global democratic consolidation is essential to prevent many scenarios for war and extinction. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy. as the trade pacts do. lagging behind. tends to remove critical decisions from citizen influence—it’s a lot easier to get a hold of your city council representative than international trade bureaucrats. Democratic countries form more reliable. They want solar energy instead of fossil fuels. All over this country—and indeed all over the world—there is a bubbling up of citizen activity dealing with consumer rights. city. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. 1993. democratic ones. and the rule of law.carnegie. But societies need to focus their attention on fostering community-oriented production. Concentrating power in international organizations. environmentally benign materials instead of others that happen to be sold in greater numbers worldwide. products. October 1995. and they may perceive their interests as more overlapping with general community interests. if countries must pay a bribe in trade sanctions to maintain laws ruled to be trade barriers by foreign tribunals. 11-12 One of the clearest lessons that emerges from a study of industrialized societies is that the centralization of the power of commerce is environmentally and democratically unsound. let alone international. Usually.

are now net inporters. Severe conflict may also arise from frustration with countries that do not go along with agreements to protect the global environment. Nigeria’s exports have slumped over the last decade and several other countries will soon be in the same position. but it is beginning to decline as forests are decimated in one country after another to provide for the needs of Europe. increasing the likelihood of many different kinds of conflict—from war and rebellion to trade disputes—and undermining possibilities for cooperation. 62-63 The gearing of entire economies to increasing raw material exports for international trade also has its environmental impact at the point of extraction or production. many experts have the sense that environmental problems will “ratchet up” the level of stress within states and the international community. assistant professor of political science and director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Programme at the University of Toronto.” Harvard biologist Edward O. Tropical timber is perhaps the best publicized case.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Free trade bad 1NC – Environment Free trade causes environmentally catastrophic resource extraction for export Tim Lang. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions. 22 Norman Meyers observes. Bulging populations and land stress may produce waves of environmental refugees. which were once exporters. especially in developing countries.9 The fate of timber in international trade is repeated with other commodities sold by the South. Thailand and the Philippines. fuelwood gathering and trees felled for domestic use. Although the massive deforestation of the last decade has a range of causes. In 1991. Developing countries exploit resources such as food. Environmental destruction leads to a global rash of interstate and civil wars Thomas Homer-Dixon. is predicted by environmentalists to have no trees left for felling in five years time. 342-343 Another possibility is that global environmental damage might increase the gap between rich and poor societies. who are aggressively fighting this trend. In general. no other form of environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species. 9 . Countries might fight among themselves because of dwindling supplies of water and the effects of upstream pollution. p. or that “free-ride” by letting other countries absorb the costs of environmental protection. The new protectionism. about 50 per cent of the total production of industrial hardwood in tropical countries. with the poor then violently confronting the rich for a fairer share of the world’s wealth. At its most extreme. coordinator of Greenpeace International’s Economic Unit. The Expendable Future. miners and those seeking fuelwood. fish. minerals and energy for export mostly to repay debts. As frightful as these events might be. p.8 The effect of timber trading on deforestation is larger than the mere numbers of trees cut down for export. which might open bitter divisions between classes and ethnic groups. Warmer temperatures could lead to contention over more easily harvested resources in the Antarctic. the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse. Japan and North America. To Wilson. Director of Parents for Safe Food and Colin Hines. Sarawak. 1998. with often dire adverse environmental effects. which along with Sabah provides more than 90 per cent of Japan’s tropical imports. or even nuclear war. Biodiversity decline causes extinction Richard Tobin. Environmental change could in time cause a slow deepening of poverty in poor countries. 1993. including clearing land for agriculture and grazing. spilling across borders and disrupting relations among ethnic groups. corrode democratic institutions. mining. This would be both an environmental disaster and a human tragedy. p. 1990. and spawn revolutions and insurgencies. Wilson reasons that they can “be repaired within a few generations. since it would destroy the homeland of the local Penan people. this tropical timber industry was worth $6 billion. the timber trade represents a significant proportion. since roads built for commercial logging bring in their wake farmers. The one process ongoing…that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by destruction of natural habitats.6 A sharp decline in food crop production and grazing land could lead to conflict between nomadic tribes and sedentary farmers. World Security Challenges for a New Century. the depletion of energy supplies.

p. The United States and the world are facing what could grow into the greatest threat to world peace in 60 years. At the bottom. Too bad. “20 Excellent Reasons Why The WTO is Bad News.S." 10 . 2001. There were similar horror stories worldwide. That's the thing about depressions. But the biggest impact of the Depression on the United States--and on world history--wasn't money. the Dow Jones industrial average had lost 90% of its value.htm. stocks began to collapse in October. How can this be? Think about the mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that started in 1929. They aren't just bad for your 401(k). Let the world economy crash far enough.uk/panap/latest/wto10. then the market headed south big time.org. August 23. 1998.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Free trade bad 1NC – Economy Free trade causes price fluctuations that unbalance the global economy Chris Keene. thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt. and the rules change. not the terrorist training camps that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace. Los Angeles Times. Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. accessed 8/23/03 The trade system is increasing economic instability: The deregulation of financial markets and the revolution in information and communication technology has stimulated massive growth in short-term capital flows. contributing editor to Opinion and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. even if that meant war with the United States and Britain.has been concentrated on primary commodities. It's the financial markets. Wages plummeted.poptel. It was blood: World War II. Because of fluctuating commodity prices in global markets this leads to increased economic insecurity. to be exact. http://www. millions of people lost their jobs.” March 30. staged a rally. undermining countries' economies during economic crises and increasing the number of people in poverty.particularly in Africa . Depression causes global war Walter Russell Mead. Coordinator of the Anti-Globalisation Network. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. M1 Even with stock markets tottering around the world. undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph Stalin's power in Russia. U. Trade and investment in least developed countries . We stop playing "The Price is Right" and start up a new round of "Saving Private Ryan. and convinced the Japanese military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire. the president and the Congress seem determined to spend the next six months arguing about dress stains.

p. and. globalization assists some powerful motives that run counter to nonproliferation efforts.org/WTO/2003/Globalization-War-SSI%20Mar03. More than 25 countries now possess ballistic missiles. the use of such weapons by renegade military personnel during a period of instability (personal.” Strategies Studies Institute. Eleven countries currently have nuclear weapons programs. and the number is rising.htm.000 and 90.” For example. thirteen more are actively seeking them. The Widening Circle of Genocide. http://www. accessed 8/23/03 Globalization also facilitates the proliferation of destabilizing capabilities. Director of Strategic Research at the Strategic Studies Institute. biological. China and North Korea have long contributed to the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. it is possible that they could do so with the assistance of a renegade government. the theft (and/or development) and use of such weapons by terrorists. proliferation of chemical. with the number expected to rise to between 80. and over 75. radiological. nuclear and high explosive/high yield weapons continues worldwide: “There is an intense sort of cooperation that goes on among countries that are trying to acquire such weapons. “Globalization And The Nature Of War.mindfully. Thus. a nuclear weapons accident due to carelessness or flawed technology (e.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Free trade bad 1NC – Prolif Globalization causes proliferation Lieutenant Colonel Antulio Echevarria II. 11 .17 Also. March.. both for strategic leverage against the United States and for economic advantages. Associate Professor in the College of Education at the University of Arkansas. such as weapons of mass destruction or mass effect. at least 17 countries— including the so-called “Axis of Evil”—currently have active chemical and biological weapons programs.000 cruise missiles are in existence. 289 There are numerous dangers inherent in the spread of nuclear weapons.000 by 2010. national or international). including but not limited to the following: the possibility that a nation threatened by destruction in a conventional war may resort to the use of its nuclear weapons.g. despite the provisions of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Chemical and Biological Weapons conventions. the accidental launching of a nuclear weapon). the miscalculation of a threat of an attack and the subsequent use of nuclear weapons in order to stave off the suspected attack. Proliferation causes nuclear war Samuel Totten. 1994. 2003. While it is unlikely (though not impossible) that terrorists would be able to design their own weapons. As the Assistant Secretary of State for Non-proliferation recently explained. the use of such weapons by an unstable leader.

1997 That deceptively simple observation has immense implications.htm. But for a few pathogens .54 While operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere have led to the killing or capture of some 16 of its 25 key leaders. “Globalization And The Nature Of War. contributed to the creation of fertile breeding grounds for terrorism as some groups try to resist its encroachment. Building on the perception that Islamic society’s current political and economic problems are the result of the West’s decadent values and duplicitous policies. Al Qaeda has associated the United States with the spread of globalization. The use of a pathogen. and religious fabric of Muslim societies. Globalization has. 12 . December 22. Foreign Policy.ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use . Al Qaeda has penetrated Islamic nongovernmental organizations and woven itself into the social. chair of the committee on international security and arms control of the National Academy of Sciences. the element of blind natural force is playing the decisive role. Consequently. the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. 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. Al Qaeda’s ideology remains intact and will probably continue to draw young Muslims. decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. 2001. March.” Strategies Studies Institute. http://www. it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. which it sees as a form of decadence.53 Despite the arrest of hundreds of operatives in North America and abroad since the attacks of September 11.org/WTO/2003/Globalization-War-SSI%20Mar03.55 Terrorist attack would spread pathogens globally. Director of Strategic Research at the Strategic Studies Institute.the risk runs in the other direction. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. accessed 8/23/03 In the global war on terrorism. For most potential biological agents. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated. Most of the damage occurs immediately. it has managed to create a substantial support base that may enable it to regenerate itself indefinitely. Al Qaeda has created new cells and reconstituted older ones. by contrast. political. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. for instance. 2003. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Free trade bad 1NC – Terrorism Globalization facilitates terrorism Lieutenant Colonel Antulio Echevarria II. senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. among other things. is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. The aftereffects. for example. causing extinction John Steinbruner. whatever they may be.mindfully.

“Western Monoculture and Indic Pluralism. It is life at the end of the limb. p. Global corporate solutions are applied to local management issues. so that it can force entire countries to bow down before it. often with disastrous results. including terminator seeds that destroy local plant varieties. moving towards a single financial standard or currency worldwide. Among its tools are genetically engineered crops. causing hunger and starvation in the world. In the summer of 1968. While all are rightly concerned about the possibility of nuclear war.html Monoculture does quite well with free trade and the spread of global consumerism. the first faint hint that the blight was in the United States came from seed growers in the Midwest. A uniform world economy destroys local economies and their rich diversity of expression and interactions based on an organic dependency. What it is really doing is undermining the most basic of human rights. What the global agribusiness envisions is control of the world food market. Agronomists in the Philippines warned of what became known as southern corn leaf blight in 1061. perhaps the biggest single environmental catastrophe in human history is unfolding in the garden. which is monoculture economics. an equally devastating time bomb is ticking away in the fields of farmers all over the world. is advertising its ability to feed the world and end world hunger.S. Loss of genetic diversity in agriculture—silent. To simplify the environment as we have done with agriculture is to destroy the complex interrelationships that hold the natural world together. Americans had lost fifteen percent of their most important crop—more than a billion bushels. the new agricultural monoculture. Other economic systems are not allowed and are systematically undermined. inexorable—is leading us to a rendezvous with extinction—to the doorstep of hunger on a scale we refuse to imagine. 1990. for example. ix While many may ponder the consequences of global warming. The danger was ignored. we narrow our options for the future and render our own survival more precarious. Rural Advancement Fund International. And the disaster was not solely domestic. Corporate agriculture. Latin America and Asia. Shattering: Food. 13 .” http://www.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Free trade bad 1NC – Monocultures Free trade causes monoculture David Frawley. and the Loss of Genetic Diversity. Meanwhile. by then it was August—and too late.org/homepage/html/boudhik/articles/vamadev1. The economic might of the monoculture levels any economic diversity.hssworld. By the close of the year. rapid. Reducing the diversity of life. who cannot even eat without its favor. By the spring of 1970 the disease had taken hold in the Florida corn crop. Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh. No Date. as if apart from the agribusiness no one could feed themselves! Extinction results without sustained genetic diversity Cary Fowler and Pat Mooney. portraying itself in the benefic aspect of the church or a socialist government selflessly aiding the poor. Politics. But it was not until corn prices leapt thirty cents a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade that the world took notice. U.' The disease was reported in Mexico not long after. seed exports may have spread the blight to Africa. and patents on plants that afford corporate ownership to nature’s bounty. The rule of multinational businesses takes the place of local economies. Some southern states lost half their harvest and many of their farmers. While consumers suffered in the grocery stores. those who oppose the global food business are deemed backwards. the right to feed oneself and to control one’s food sources. That is the subject of this book. producers were out a billion dollars in lost yield. fertilizers that weaken the soils and breed dependency.

Planet Debate Free trade bad  ***WAR 14 .

Transnational threats. then. and an ever-widening gap between the richest and poorest nations. 60 percent of the world’s wealth continues to travel back and forth among the developed countries. While there is some validity to the view that “established democracies do not go to war with other democracies. 2003. Also. contrary to expectation.htm. the increase in information that globalization brings may well intensify the play of chance and probability in war. however. could go unresolved.htm.org/WTO/2003/Globalization-War-SSI%20Mar03. collapse after only transitory successes. http://www.” Strategies Studies Institute. how many of them have stable regimes with established civil societies where strong traditions exist conforming to the rule of law? As the example of Weimar Germany shows. economic interconnectedness and continuous growth do not necessarily preclude conflict. “Globalization And The Nature Of War. as the First and Second World Wars demonstrate. especially as the world’s population continues to grow.” Strategies Studies Institute. 2003. ethnic rivalries. accessed 8/23/03 Globalization is strengthening the role that politics will play in war by affording it the capability to exert greater real-time control over military operations. for example.org/WTO/2003/Globalization-War-SSI%20Mar03. including water. http://www. but the rich are richer still. newly formed democracies can rapidly reverse course and transform into dangerous autocratic regimes. http://www. and the gap between them is growing.Planet Debate Free trade bad  War Globalization increases the risk of war Lieutenant Colonel Antulio Echevarria II. Finally.mindfully. could continue to grow in strength and influence. Political leaders can now mobilize hostile passions more quickly and over a larger area than hitherto. Clearly. 15 . “Globalization And The Nature Of War.” the number of established democracies is relatively small.mindfully. The poor may be richer. Democracy spread by globalization fails to ensure peace. globalization is changing how we interact with our world. Furthermore. And.mindfully. or so-called failed states. While the world may indeed have more democracies than ever before. while globalization has improved general wealth. Globalization decreases international stability Lieutenant Colonel Antulio Echevarria II.org/WTO/2003/Globalization-War-SSI%20Mar03. such as international crime syndicates.htm. considerable evidence suggests that globalization is making national and regional economies more interdependent. March. thereby giving rise to an integrated world market economy. accessed 8/23/03 Despite its apparent positive impact on the spread of democracy and free-market economies. Director of Strategic Research at the Strategic Studies Institute. What is more. terrorist networks. Globalization is also making the element of hostility more critical. weak. Director of Strategic Research at the Strategic Studies Institute. especially if the cultural backlash it has generated thus far gathers more momentum. March. globalization might produce a more dangerous and unpredictable world. This world might be characterized by shifting power relationships. March. giving them the greater share of benefits. are the impacts of these trends. What is not yet clear. raised living standards. thriving among autocratic. and drug cartels. nationalism. A number of new democracies—lacking strong traditions for maintaining checks and balances—might.” Strategies Studies Institute. serious crises would undoubtedly arise. particularly in areas “suffering” from the spread of globalization. Countries are not stable Lieutenant Colonel Antulio Echevarria II. accessed 8/23/03 The associated spread of democratic ideas and free market values helped increase the total number of democracies in the world by 14 percent within the last decade alone. and increased life expectancy across the world. and competition for scarce resources. Director of Strategic Research at the Strategic Studies Institute. Thus. 2003. ad hoc security arrangements. religiousbased antagonisms. “Globalization And The Nature Of War.

skillful commanders and well-trained militaries still matter. Images and the ideas they convey may now be more decisive than the sword. Certainly. this control will vary depending on the personalities involved as well as a combatant’s ability to interdict its opponent’s communications." but to a large degree the interconnection is volitional. Of course. brought many empires to ruin. to ensure that the markets and raw material sources with which it is linked are not closed by "renationalized" economic and foreign policies that will result from regional instability. Second.mindfully. Economic interdependence causes war Christopher Layne and Benjamin Schwarz. economic interdependence--and the need to protect America's stakes in it--is invoked to justify a post-Cold War U.S.” Strategies Studies Institute. 2003. are important values. 16 . http://www.S. globalization is increasing the criticality of the element of hostility. In doing so. particularly in areas “suffering” from the spread of globalization.S. Maximizing national autonomy. Yet. military presence in Europe and East Asia and military intervention in the Balkan conflict. the foreign policy community looks to American military power to impose harmony so that free trade can take place.Planet Debate Free trade bad  War Globalization increases the possibility and danger of war Lieutenant Colonel Antulio Echevarria II. Depending on unstable regions for economic prosperity has. To be sure. September 22. America's world order strategy. These changes may amount to a net increase in the dual element of chance and uncertainty at all levels of war. it must be remembered that not only does the United States depend far less on foreign trade than its major economic "partners. Director of Strategic Research at the Strategic Studies Institute. relying on risky economic ties acts like a straitjacket. Cheney's. Any real fundamental reassessment of America's grand strategy would carefully assess the costs and benefits of interdependence and its concomitant. achieving foreign policy solvency.htm. Foreign Policy. and Odom's all too candid comments reveal that modern Manchesterism is a fraud. But they are not the only important values. “Globalization And The Nature Of War. Political leaders can now mobilize hostile passions more quickly and over a larger area than hitherto. 1993 In the same way. it is strengthening the role that politics will play in war by affording it the capability to exert greater real-time control over military operations. Foreign Policy. efficiency and consumer choice. of course. which interdependence promotes. and with a broader array of weapons. First. September 22. Many thoughtful Americans are concerned about U. the continuing cost of pacifying Europe and East Asia must be weighed against the supposed benefits of interdependence. March. dictating expensive and potentially dangerous defense commitments. in new dimensions. globalization is changing the nature of war in several ways. Instead of subscribing to the classical liberal view that free trade automatically creates a natural harmony of interests among states that leads to peace. So much for the peaceful effects of interdependence. it may prove more difficult to cool such passions than it did to ignite them. Should not the same concerns apply to Europe and East Asia? In both cases. Economic interdependence risks war Christopher Layne and Benjamin Schwarz. Rather than being the stimulus to peace that it is touted to be. In that respect. accessed 8/23/03 If the war on terrorism is any guide. U. globalization means that opponents (even if they are neighbors) can now fight each other across global distances. In effect.org/WTO/2003/Globalization-War-SSI%20Mar03. and minimizing the risk of war are also important--indeed much more important. 1993 But the American foreign policy community turns Manchesterism on its head by accepting the economic but not the political logic of free trade theory. dependence on overseas oil because of the risks inherent in relying upon an unstable region for their prosperity. the foreign policy establishment has embraced the proposition that wars (or at least continuous preparations for war) are necessary for the American economy to prosper. The strategy dictates that the United States be prepared to risk war. Thus. security commitments are viewed as the indispensable precondition for economic interdependence. It remains to be seen whether information technology will reduce or exacerbate this expansion. Lugar's. if necessary. Finally.

but countries that will not obey global corporations These are the states. and for access to oil pipelines and the once state -owned mines by big powerful corporations. member of the board of Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group and director of the Barnard-Boecker Centre Foundation.” January. nine years of economic sanctions have killed a million and a half people. for the sake of salary and status.once a major customer. Globalization and militarization are inseparable mutant twins. Many are suffering the results of poisoning by depleted uranium used in bombs and missiles. 17 . “Seattle .org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/seattle/convergence.in sweatshops. that are punished by embargos and military intervention. http://www. unemployed and angry. and do the dirty work of killing and dying for the elites.htm. accessed 8/30/03 As rural peoples in the majority world are driven from their land . So-called "Rogue States" are not oppressive dictatorships like Burma and Indonesia. When national governments fight their neighbours or their own people who demand justice. Young men. Modern warfare is based on the greed of the increasingly rich defending their privilege from the poor . Canada enforces a trade embargo that prevents our farmers from selling grain to Iraq . like Serbia and Cuba.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Militarism Free trade is inextricably linked to militarization Theresa Wolfwood. are ripe for militarization. it is this growing disposable population of desparate young men who are brainwashed and forced into the killing business.women are forced to support their familes in globalized employment . mainly children. NATO bombed Yugoslavia into being a permissive environment for the global drug trade of foreign armed thugs. domestic servitude and the sex trade.a convergence of globalization and militarization. Watch Columbia and Venezuela where indigenous peoples' land claims threaten oil companies.because of failing cash crops .increasing in number and poverty as complicit governments support corporate rule. After a war that destroyed Iraq's social infrastructure and killed thousands of civilians. cheap imports and landlords who convert to mechanized farming . 2000.nadir.

sbs. the question of the direct effect of economic interdependence on world peace remained unresolved and highly contested. that the controversy over the influence of economic interdependence might be as much conceptual in origin as it is methodological. Grieco. in this context. Economic Interdependence. In the absence of democratic political constraints.Planet Debate Free trade bad  A2: Free trade solves war Economic interdependence doesn’t stop conflict Christopher Gelpi. In the presence of democratic political structures. Economic Interdependence. http://psweb. interdependence should constrain militarized conflict. Economic interdependence only prevents war in democratic states Christopher Gelpi. the measurement of interdependence.ohio-state. the relationship between trade disruption and a leader’s ability to retain office becomes attenuated. Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University and Joseph M.edu/faculty/bpollins/book/Gelpi&Grieco.edu/faculty/bpollins/book/Gelpi&Grieco. Barbieri constructed a revised data set that supplemented IMF figures for bilateral trade with information from alternative sources. With her revised data set. Thus. however. Professor of Political Science Duke University. Grieco. and the Liberal Peace. at the end of the decade.ohio-state. international relations scholars still have not reached a consensus regarding the relationship between economic interdependence and military conflict. in this context we do not expect trade systematically to prevent militarized conflict. 1998) suggested that Oneal and Russett had erred in following a rule in constructing their data set whereby they attributed zero bilateral trade to pairs of countries if neither had reported trade to the International Monetary Fund. she recorded the trade data as missing – effectively eliminating the case from her analysis – rather than attributing a level of zero trade for that dyad. Thus. and the treatment of missing data. 2001. These are obviously important issues that deserve careful scrutiny. the Democratic State. we would suggest that the key to clarifying the relationship between interdependence and military conflict might lie in linking trade disruption and economic growth to the ability of national leaders to retain office. June 27. we expect that the resulting disruption of trade could materially undermine a leader’s prospects for retaining office. We would contend. The current debate has focused primarily on methodological issues such as the use of pooled time-series data. 2001. Katherine Barbieri (1996. Thus. If no data could be found. 18 . http://psweb. Professor of Political Science Duke University. Barbieri found that growing economic interdependence did not appear to dampen the likelihood of militarized conflict and might even exacerbate it. however. Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University and Joseph M. the Democratic State.sbs. June 27.pdf At the same time.pdf Although debated for more than a century. and the Liberal Peace. Specifically.

but did not cause it. providing the ideological momentum for the liberal trade that persists to this date. for example. it was rearmament for the war which injected such purchasing power into the economy. which meant that business was unable to reflate the economy. To many modem free traders. business cycles are integral to market economies. No-one. . The problem. helped to stack the cards in favour of the pro-trade forces. writes: ‘The Great Depression has been associated with beggar-my-neighbour policies of competitive exchange-rate depreciation and tariff escalation. The cause of the 1930s’ slump. wants to see that happen again. just as it is today when nation states try to protect their industries by imposing tariffs on imports. and indeed their seemingly counter productive results. there are many more plausible candidates for the role of villain. the 1930s world depression. of the University of of Chicago. was the lack of demand. In fact. In fact. when tariff barriers were erected on a huge scale. 1993. p. they said. is the worst example of protectionism. each aimed at preserving and deflecting aggregate demand towards one’s own industries at the expense of those of one’s trading partners. 152-153 Not true.. accepts that state intervention did not cause the 1930s crash.’9 Just before World War II.. Even a staunch free trader such as Professor Milton Friedman. But it is certainly arguable that tariff escalation deepened the Depression. According to Keynes. the magnitude of the failure of tariffs. governments should manage prosperity through massive investment in public works. coordinator of Greenpeace International’s Economic Unit. Old protectionism was a response to the slump of the 1930s. was very complex but a major role was played by the failures of governments of the time to stimulate the economy adequately and made worse by the old protectionist policies. another free trader and a GATT advisor. except conceivably the armaments industry.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Protectionism Didn’t Cause WW2 Free trade didn’t cause World War II Tim Lang. 19 . Director of Parents for Safe Food and Colin Hines. his argument is that governments took the wrong turn in their attempts to manage the crisis. People and banks with funds were not releasing them for investment while the economy was so depressed. This exacerbated the slump. The new protectionism. Keynes and others explained how to cure the depression by injecting purchasing power into the economy. Few believe that such policies caused the Depression.8 Professor Jagdish Bhagwati.

and several so-called rogue states—have developed or are developing the capability to launch strategic-level cyber attacks.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Info-war Globalization causes info-war Lieutenant Colonel Antulio Echevarria II. http://www. More than 30 countries—including Russia. The interconnectedness of many nations’ infrastructures means that a successful cyber attack against a single sector in one country could result in adverse effects in other sectors within the same country. Indeed. “Globalization And The Nature Of War. accessed 8/23/03 Globalization has also introduced a new form of warfare: cyber-war. Director of Strategic Research at the Strategic Studies Institute.mindfully. March. China. 2003.org/WTO/2003/Globalization-War-SSI%20Mar03.htm. or those of its neighbors.” Strategies Studies Institute. 20 . intended (and unintended) adverse effects could well travel globally.

As in the current war in Afghanistan. not ours. and we are in the process of making it more so. 2001. economic sanctions on Iraq and Iran. leading to interdependence. even among some European allies. along with any associated engineering and shipping facilities. most of America's main trading partners are not engaged in the conflict. We have already seen how tepid political support for American actions in Afghanistan has been.S.org/view_art. to depend on foreign sources for items critical to the production or support of its weapons systems is to create a new vulnerability that would be easier for an opponent to attack than it is to go after our armed forces directly in the field. The risk factors of moving defense related industries outside American borders are many. and might be driven to withhold military components or systems in order to protect their business interests from retaliation in case of war.S. accessed 8/24/03 Second. The continental United States is still the most secure territory on the planet. The dawn of the 21st century doesn't appear to be any different. Many of these states oppose U. would be easier to attack by either conventional or terrorist means. 21 . including their trade and investment relations with countries that may be adversaries of the United States. http://www. “The War on Terrorism Precludes Free Trade As Practiced Today. They will assess their options with the view of protecting their interests. which means that the United States must look to it own productive resources first and foremost.Planet Debate Free trade bad  War on terror Free trade undercuts America’s ability to fight terrorism William Hawkins. Factories placed anywhere else.asp?Prod_ID=58. It has never been a sustainable system because the world has never remained at peace for very long.tradealert. For the U. was designed for a world at peace. Besides physical security of manufacturing operations. The classical theory of "free" trade. when the United States builds new military systems it must not make them dependent on foreign sources for key components or manufacturing capabilities. the reliability of foreign defense industries depend on a variety of factors. starting with location.” November 20.

Planet Debate Free trade bad  ***ECONOMIC 22 .

developing countries from Thailand and Russia to Argentina. The fund's report found a small group of developing countries have picked up the "lion's share" of capital flows as financial links between countries have become more integrated. Even the IMF admits free trade destroys the global economy Reuters. In part. The intensity of recent strikes in France. senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute. The human consequences of all this can be seen in the spread of sweatshop factories in countries from El Salvador to Indonesia.html. By generating deep apprehension and feelings of insecurity. 3/17/2003.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Economy Free trade causes global race to the bottom in working conditions and wages and causes massive economic instability Michael Renner. Germany. the pressure on countries and communities to remain competitive and offer an inviting investment climate is tremendous. This is particularly true for countries that rely primarily on exports of commodities. But critics say those policies damage vulnerable economies. Nations with good economic policies are more likely to reap the most benefits and steer clear of financial crisis. The IMF. income. have seen their economies collapse. They have precious little influence over the markets that. this means downward pressure on wages and a trend toward a low-common-denominator world with regard to working conditions. In the absence of strong rules and norms. "In other words. The vast majority of countries and their populations are relatively powerless to affect the central workings and dynamics of the emerging global system.com/markets/newswire/2003/03/17/rtr909541. which was put together by four researchers including the fund's chief economist Kenneth Rogoff. if financial integration has a positive effect on growth. This sort of globalization primarily benefits the relatively few countries." the report said. 23 . economic globalization could turn into a free-for-all. Ordinary consumers in rich countries may “benefit” from this blatant exploitation—in the form of cheap clothing and other products—but as workers themselves. which has often been the target of violent anti-globalization protests. an intensifying competition among and within communities everywhere over jobs." In the last 10 years. The corporate search for ever cheaper labor is a constant threat to workers. they cannot possibly compete with a labor force paid hunger-level wages. p. the very unevenness and uncertainty of the globalization process is itself becoming a source of conflict. and economic wellbeing. communities. there is as yet no clear and robust empirical proof that the effect is quantitatively significant. infrastructure. and individuals with adequate capital. The IMF often recommends that poor countries open their economies to foreign investors and free-market policies. social welfare. HIGHER RISK OF CRISES International financial integration should also help countries to reduce economic volatility. but in reality this has not happened.forbes." the new report said. technological know-how. their human rights denied. the research found. by determining the demand for their raw materials and the prices their exports will fetch. "Indeed. "Theoretical models" show that financial integration can increase economic growth in developing countries. and environmental regulations. but in practice it is difficult to prove this link. and entrepreneurial skills. the study said. and are often highly vulnerable to its vagaries. accessed 4/7/03 The International Monetary Fund sounded more like its critics on Monday when it admitted there is little evidence globalization is helping poor countries. and their efforts to unionize (to gain even minimal improvements in their daily lives) countered with often severe repression. An overview of the study. companies. raising poverty rates and destroying the environment. 1998. 278-280 Given the relative ease of relocating factories and shifting investment resources across the planet. and South Korea clearly demonstrates the stakes involved. describes the conclusions as "sobering". even though many of them were trying to follow IMF-prescribed open market policies. "Globalization has heightened these risks since cross-country financial linkages amplify the effects of various shocks and transmit them more quickly across national borders. in which workers are paid a pittance and treated like disposable items—their dignity trampled upon. These conditions present fertile ground for severe conflict. control their economic fortunes. the process of capital account liberalization appears to have been accompanied in some cases by increased vulnerability to crises. in a new study found economic integration may actually increase the risk of financial crisis in the developing world. http://www. World Security Challenges for a New Century.

htm.than current orthodoxy allows. Similarly. they would probably be healthier with a lower caloric intake. http://www. such developments are no substitute for a diverse local economy. co-directors of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). or less fat to avoid arteriosclerosis. and “structural adjustment” policies that often cause unnecessary economic harm.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Local economies One size does not fit all. cuts down the number of workers and the number of places where work occurs.and their role in increasing income is analogous to trying to find a simple relationship between food intake and health in the United States. linking the search for secure employment with the need to protect the environment.” regardless of how it is accomplished. Although even for them. Over the past two and a half decades. But it may mean that some of the development strategies that have proved successful in the past will require a wider range of interventions and flexibility on a number of policies-. research associate at CEPR. is not likely to be useful for policy purposes. as happened in Liverpool. 107-108 Free trade. if ever the UK government did acknowledge this local haemorrhage. because the ‘news government style is supposedly ‘non-interventionist’. Countries need autonomy over their economies Mark Weisbrot. p. With the best will in the world. and Russian cases over the last three years. research into the advantages of increasing “openness. heritage parks. for example. simply eliminating the most nutritious foods from their diet. but it can rarely provide long term local economic answers. local economies are sacrificed and soon suffer from a downward spiral of declining infrastructure. have been promoted at the expense of the much larger. One image promoted in the 1 980s was ‘the Park’ — business parks. Glasgow. As a result. promoting competition and claiming comparative advantage. accessed 12/7/02 The search for abstract principles about trade and financial openness. and need a more balanced diet to assure adequate nutrition. However fruitless such research may be.it would probably depend on how the equation was specified. shoppings malls. rigid formulas promoting openness to foreign trade and investment. attempts to formulate development strategies specific to the needs of individual countries have been supplanted with simple. but the scale ofwhat has been lost and what has to be created is enormous.cepr. dynamic gains that accrue from shifting to higher value-added branches of production. 24 . is Enterprise Zones or EPZs. theme parks. the Potteries and South Wales. About half of Americans are overweight. Brazilian.and much more harmful. and that essentially they are on their own. Govemments (both local and national) are relatively powerless against this widely accepted economic logic. Throughout the 1980s. private ownership. if they are lucky. coordinator of Greenpeace International’s Economic Unit. monetary discipline-. But we could be pretty sure that the results would not be particularly useful to an individual trying to choose a healthy diet.[22] Free trade destroys local economies Tim Lang.or exacerbated-economic crises as in the Asian. and garden exhibitions. an excuse. Others are not eating enough-. determined by outside agencies. Local authorities competed for the favours of TNCs. it is not surprising that developing countries have shown dramatically poorer growth performance. As people become aware of this process. In the South Wales valleys — devastated by the loss of mines and steel jobs — that process is beginning.including trade-. This has been true even when these policies have led to-. August 7.net/response_to_dollar_kraay. Local economic policy is required. This does not mean that there are no gains to be had from increasing trade or foreign investment. Others are eating the wrong foods. and Dean Baker. Director of Parents for Safe Food and Colin Hines. The “fiscal discipline”-. Robert Naiman. 1993. et al. as we saw in Chapter 7. and all people are offered. Local jobs are lost through the working of the market. overly tight monetary policies. will not necessarily improve their long-term health. for the state funding a few private companies. The fact that the growth slowdown of the last two decades has coincided with increasing globalization should cause economists who advocate indiscriminate opening to trade and financial flows at least some cause for reflection.they need more food. The new protectionism. It is difficult to say what a regression of long-term health on caloric intake of individuals in the US would produce-. industrial parks. low morale and the blight of unemployment. and Gila Neta. A garden festival may mean an environmental clean-up of former industrial ground. they are beginning to have to think of alternatives for local economic regeneration. which are relatively very small. the size of government. In an era in which their economic choices have been so restricted and very often. its answers were limited and paltry. 2000.imposed by markets has been extolled and reinforced. The static gains from comparative advantage. it has been much more damaging when put into practice. or even inflation-. senior policy analyst at CEPR.

Mexico helps to keep U. specializing according to that country’s comparative advantage. Ironically.S.edu/cgr/envirotrade_seminar/Herman. November 1993. The theory is supposed to work as follows. http://www. Free trade doesn’t increase wages Herman E. Given the existing overpopulation and high demographic growth of the Third World it is clear that the equalization will be downward. Overpopulated countries are naturally low-wage countries. Wage levels vary enormously between countries and are largely determined by the supply of labor. (The theoretical possibility that low wages reflect a taste for poverty and therefore a legitimate reason for cost differences is not here taken seriously. Efficiency is attained. More luxury goods will be produced and fewer basic wage goods. but unfortunately one of those assumptions is that capital is immobile internationally. The consequence of capital mobility would be similar to that of international labor mobility—a strong tendency to equalize wages throughout the world. the opportunity for new domestic employment diminishes. they do so at the expense of labor in the high-wage countries. Displaced peasants will bid down wages. In the U. Scientific American.S. The doctrine of comparative advantage is quite correct given the assumptions on which it rests.. Capital and labor are reallocated within the country. Of course further inducements to absolute profits such as low social insurance charges or a low degree of internalization of environmental costs also attract capital.S. at least until checked by a crisis of insufficient demand due to a lack of worker purchasing power resulting from low wages. Their land will be bought cheaply by agribusinesses to produce fancy vegetables and cut flowers for the U.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Wages Free trade causes a global collapse in wages Herman Daly. It is likely that NAFTA will ruin Mexican peasants when "inexpensive" U. aquifers. Cheap labor means low prices and a competitive advantage in trade. which the U. but distributive equity is sacrificed. economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank. It will follow the highest absolute profit which is usually determined by the lowest absolute wage. market. as it has indeed been during the last decade in the U.S. p. needs to sustain its corn monoculture. The Case Against Free Trade. However.ufl. oil wells and the federal treasury) can be freely imported. But we have assumed that all countries have internalized costs to the same degree in order to focus on the wage issue. in significant part because of trade liberalization. Nor does labor in low-wage countries necessarily gain from free trade. when both capital and goods are mobile internationally then capital will follow absolute advantage to the low-wage country rather than reallocate itself according to comparative advantage within its home country. Daly. at the same time the relatively efficient activities (those with the comparative advantage) expand. Once capital is mobile then the entire doctrine of comparative advantage and all its comforting demonstrations become irrelevant. but the level at which equalization will occur will be higher than at present. Even if free trade and capital mobility raise wages in low-wage countries (and that tendency is thwarted by overpopulation and rapid population growth). which in turn depends on population size and growth rates.) But adjustment economists do not worry about that because economists have proved that free trade between high-wage and low-wage countries can be mutually advantageous thanks to comparative advantage. Most citizens are wage earners. This is especially so because the demographic rate of increase of the lower class (labor) is frequently twice or more that of the upper class (capital). usually toward the very same low-wage countries." Their real wages have fallen 17 percent between 1973 and 1990. Of course. When in international competition the relatively inefficient activities lose Out and jobs are eliminated.S.htm When capital flows abroad. 80 percent of the labor force is classified as "nonsupervisory employees. For most traded goods labor is still the largest item of cost and consequently the major determinant of price. 1993. But that can be forestalled by efficient reallocation to serve the new pattern of effective demand resulting from the greater concentration of income.S. Professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland. capital will benefit from cheap labor abroad followed by cheap labor at home.law. returns to capital will also be equalized by free trade and capital mobility. which drives down the price for domestic labor. corn (subsidized by depleting topsoil.S. and if population growth is rapid they will remain low-wage countries. They thereby increase income inequality there. 125-127 B. corn "inexpensive" by exporting its own vanishing reserves of oil and genetic crop variants. 25 . U. absorbing both the labor and capital that were disemployed in activities with a comparative disadvantage.

2000. Robert Naiman. accessed 12/7/02 The authors note that “there are 108 episodes in which per capita GDP grew at a rate of at least 2 percent per year: in 102 of these episodes. the income of the poor does rise-but it would indeed be shocking if this were not true. In fact.trade as a share of GDP has doubled-.htm. co-directors of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). For comparison.cepr. 26 . as a threat to the well being of the less well-off.and historically unprecedented-. Since 1973.that has arisen here. as well as by labor unions and public interest groups.phenomenon for the majority of the US labor force to be excluded from sharing in the gains from economic growth. research associate at CEPR. But this is actually a much weaker statement than appears at first glance. there are 35 episodes where the income of the poor actually fell while per capita income rose. et al. during the first half of the post-World War II era.it should not be surprising that globalization would be seen by the majority of the population. Among the authors’ data. income of the poor also rose.” This statement. quoted by The Economist in its laudatory article on the paper. if we widen our angle to encompass the majority of the labor force.net/response_to_dollar_kraay. and Gila Neta. is taken as evidence of a highly stable relationship between the income of the poor and per capita income. the wages of the bottom three quintiles increased roughly in step with the average (which rose 80 percent from 1946-73). August 7. So it is a relatively recent-. For the median wage and bottom-quintile wage to actually fall during this same period is an economic change of momentous proportions. for the majority of data points do not meet the threshold of 2 percent per capita GDP growth.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Poverty Globalization increases poverty and inequality and causes global unrest Mark Weisbrot. In other words. over a period of at least five years. The real median wage in the United States is no higher today than it was in 1973. per capita income in the US has risen by 70 percent. this statement really means that when the economy is growing rather rapidly. and Dean Baker. from the point of view of the majority of Americans. Real wages for the bottom quintile of the labor force actually dropped by about 9 percent from 1973 to 1997. Since this has been a period in which the US economy has opened up fairly rapidly-. it helps to explain the backlash against globalization-. and 1989-94. while per capita income rose. senior policy analyst at CEPR.[16] Two of these episodes occurred in the United States: the authors’ data show the per capita income of the poor falling from 1979-84. http://www.which the authors dismiss as fundamentally misinformed-.

Cocoa is also under threat from a new biotechnology-derived substitute. 13 Southern economies dependent on trading in primary. coordinator of Greenpeace International’s Economic Unit. The new protectionism. for example. but now additionally threatened by the impact of biotechnology. already threatened by artificial sweeteners and maize-derived sugars. 27 . An example is cane sugar. 1993. Selective import controls can also be used to buy time to develop local infrastructures. but to allow machine tools in. Another problem with specialized economies is their vulnerability to new inventions.Planet Debate Free trade bad  North/South Protectionist measures are the only way lesser developed countries can get off the mercantilist treadmill Tim Lang. unprocessed commodities such as jute or coffee have seen declining returns in recent decades. Selective import controls can certainly be justified to keep luxury cars out. Director of Parents for Safe Food and Colin Hines. They are on a treadmill — having to sell more to get less in return. Southern economies have got to prepare for such changes and need to jump off rather than speed up their efforts on the treadmill. One is gas guzzling for the elite while the other can serve a wider citizenry. p.

1993. so poorer countries are doubly exploited — neither being able to borrow large sums. leads to currency devaluations. the USA by + $31. the USA — home to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) was allowed to build up staggering deficits.5 billion. In 1989. 28 . Burkina Faso’s by 47 per cent. Efforts to service these debts can lead to unsustainable rates of exploitation of exportable resources. both large and small debtor countries are encouraged to trade their way out of debt. and Burundi’s by 41 per cent. It helps if you control the purse-strings. In the trade in commercial services (banks. p. the UK by + $11. 128-129 D. Free trade and free capital mobility have interfered with macroeconomic stability by permitting huge international payments imbalances and capital transfers resulting in debts that are unrepayable in many cases and excessive in others.’6 So what happens if a country’s balance of trade goes awry? To paraphrase Keynes on debt. p. saw that figure offset by a worrying $67 million of imports in the same year. with no outside intervention.6 billion. giving rise to foreign exchange speculation. The Case Against Free Trade. buj Brazil goes into deficit on services by — $2 billion. and hot money movements. which they need more than anyone. it may be fine but for the losers it’s a hemorrhage. Niger’s export trade in goods collapsed by 40 per cent on 1988 exports. economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank.2 billion.15 Shifts such as this pose terrible strains on poor countries. not the millions of Samoa. and to an eagerness to make new loans to get the foreign exchange with which to pay old loans. insurance etc) almost the same countries dominate and the same ones are at the bottom. Inflation. allow banks to be ruthless. the USA and UK pull back some of their losses on goods. as they threatened to when Latin American states refused to pay debt interest in the 1 980s. plus the need to export to pay off loans. Efforts to pay back loans and still meet domestic obligations lead to government budget deficits and monetary creation with resulting inflation. and India by — $1. if you owe a little it is your problem. The new protectionism. coordinator of Greenpeace International’s Economic Unit. Here. for instance. Director of Parents for Safe Food and Colin Hines. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush.Planet Debate Free trade bad  North/South – debt Free trade results in unsustainable debts that destroy macroeconomic stability Herman Daly. Small debts. For the winners. 1993. Large debts give some leverage to debtors in that non-payment of huge sums can inflict considerable damage. Before criticising these countries. Free trade causes debt crisis that destroy developing countries Tim Lang. disrupting the macroeconomic stability that adjustment was supposed to foster. nor being able to pay back their debts easily. which exported $12 millions worth of merchandise in 1989. however. Nepal’s by 17 per cent. remember that the UK and USA balances of payment in recent years have had deficits in billions of dollars. capital flight. We explore whether this works. Samoa. whereas if you owe a huge amount it is the banks’. with a consequent disincentive to take a hard look at the real productivity of the project for which the new loan is being made. In practice. 18-19 Trade puts countries into an unequal gladiatorial contest. and what its impact is on the environment and the poor in Chapter 8 when we describe the so-called Structural Adjustment Programmes of the World Bank and the IMF.

This is certainly not achievable by a more finely tuned “adjustment” to the standard growth model which is largely responsible for having created the present impasse in the first place. This increase in production presumably will trigger the automatic demographic transition to lower birth rates—a doctrine that might be considered a part of the adjustment package in so far as any attention at all is paid to population. economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank. Scientific American. 29 . free trade becomes a recipe for hastening the speed with which competition lowers standards for efficiency. the economists believe that growth will eventually raise wages worldwide to the former high-wage level and beyond. then this problem would disappear and the standard arguments for free trade could again be evoked in the new context.S. November 1993. much less the manyfold increase required to generalize the higher standards worldwide. Still less can the ecosystem afford an ever growing population that is striving to consume more per capita. The goal of sustainable development is. What happens to biodiversity if we double the human population.edu/cgr/envirotrade_seminar/Herman. Professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland. whatever it concretely comes to mean.4 billion people presently alive to consume resources and absorptive capacities at the same per capita rate as Americans or Europeans is ecologically impossible. they say. For all 5. Such a thought can only be entertained by those who ignore the issue of scale.e.Planet Debate Free trade bad  A2: Universal Levels Of Growth It’s environmentally impossible for the South to achieve levels of consumption analogous to the North Herman E. The distribution problem of falling wages in high-wage countries would only be temporary. Daly.ufl. as we are projected to do over the next 30 to 50 years? These limits put a brake on the ability of growth to wash away the problems of misallocation and maldistribution. Yet the goal of a sustainable scale of total resource use forces us to ask: What will happen if the entire population of the earth consumes resources at the rate of high-wage countries? Neoclassical economists generally ignore this question or give the facile response that there are no limits. it is neither just nor sustainable.htm WHEN confronted with such problems. to move the world toward a state in which “development”. will be for all people in all generations. The allocation problem of standards-lowering competition. as it currently is understood on the U. thanks to the enormous increase in production made possible by free trade.. Of course if somehow all countries decided to control their populations and adopt distributive and scale limiting measures such that wages could be equalized world wide at an acceptably high level. 1993. is only possible for a minority of the world’s population over a few generations—i. Although the likelihood of that context seems infinitesimal. as of course neoclassicals traditionally do. neoclassical economists often answer that growth will solve them. As a species. will be dealt with by universally "harmonizing" all standards upward. The regenerative and assimilative capacities of the biosphere cannot support even the current levels of resource consumption. distribution and scale. The steady-state economic paradigm suggests a different answer. distributive equity and ecological sustainability. 125-127 The standard neoclassical adjustment view argues that wages will eventually be equalized worldwide at high levels. http://www. Raising the whole world to Western levels of consumption is impossible Herman Daly. by changes in allocation. p. In fact. we might for purposes of afortiori argument consider a major problem with free trade that would still remain. we already preempt about 40 percent of the land-based primary product of photosynthesis for human purposes. Development. The Case Against Free Trade. Much less is it possible to extend that level of consumption to future generations. model.law.

htm. In the Asian financial crisis. et al. For example.[8] And Indonesia. As independent economists have noted for many years[13]. Getting rid of a current account deficit by shrinking the domestic economy. the IMF insisted on maintaining an overvalued fixed exchange rate. and the lowering of its international credit rating. all of these errors are part of a pattern of macroeconomic policies that have a pronounced contractionary bias. there are some strong indications in each of these cases. The IMF supported a similar policy in Brazil.until the currency collapsed in August of 1998. with manufacturing production increasing by 12.net/response_to_dollar_kraay. Although the regional economy has now recovered. senior policy analyst at CEPR. for example.[11] While it is always difficult to say what the counter-factual would have been.cepr. as Stiglitz[9]. Thailand. Inflation in Russia for the year following the devaluation (1999) was 36 percent.[12]For the interventions in Russia and Brazil. and is down to 1. hobbling domestic production. imposed currency controls. In Russia in 1998. So however much “fiscal discipline” and policies that contain inflation may be helpful in some instances. but maintained a speculative bubble in the financial sphere and drained the real economy of investment capital. or how preventing a further slide could be worth the bankruptcies and economic collapse caused by these interest rates. The Russian devaluation in particular has been helpful in jump-starting its stagnant industrial sector. the Fund’s drastically tight monetary policies (interest rates as high as 80 percent in Indonesia) and fiscal austerity deepened the recession and threw tens of millions of people into poverty. It is difficult to imagine how much further the currency would have fallen. which. has yet to recover. 2000. http://www.4 percent decline in GDP in 1998. The overvalued ruble kept imports artificially cheap. and for this year it is running at about 25 percent. 30 . We also have the counter-factual of Malaysia. We now know that this argument was wrong. research associate at CEPR. and Dean Baker. co-directors of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). August 7. which required raising interest rates as high as 150 percent.8 percent and the trade surplus by tenfold since the collapse of the ruble. and the Philippines) with more than 50 percent of their total population. Malaysia. Defenders of the status quo argue that all of these cases would have been worse without the IMF’s policies. in Indonesia. Was growth unnecessarily reduced in these cases by the Fund policy. and others have argued? The answer to any question of this type depends on a counterfactual. Sachs[10]. rather than use sky-high interest rates to defend its currency. Robert Naiman. is a Fund strategy that has been deployed for decades. the extremely high interest rates failed to prevent the currency from losing more than three-quarters of its value.9 percent for 1999. and exports overly expensive-.Planet Debate Free trade bad  IMF/World Bank Bad IMF/World Bank policies throw hundreds of millions into poverty Mark Weisbrot. the Fund’s argument for sacrificing output in order to defend the currency was that devaluation would lead to runaway inflation. after a 13.4 percent for the first five months of this year. only to have it collapse just a few months later. Malaysia emerged from the crisis with the smallest percentage of lost output among the five countries. In spite of widespread opposition to this move from both multilateral and private foreign creditors. These policies not only led to excessive foreign debt burdens. these medicines are often quite lethal when prescribed inappropriately or in overdose. and Gila Neta. the largest of the five crisis countries (including South Korea. the lost growth and increased poverty is still significant. accessed 12/7/02 For example. in just the last three years the IMF and its allied creditors have made serious policy errors that have undoubtedly reduced cumulative economic growth for hundreds of millions of people. The government raised interest rates to more than 50 percent and borrowed billions from the Fund in November of 1998 to stabilize its overvalued currency. as Dollar and Kraay assert. Inflation in Brazil was 8.

31 . http://www. http://www. But this is due to the quadrupling of GDP. research associate at CEPR. The sudden reversal of capital flows that followed. et al. And they may have multiple objectives that do not necessarily coincide with the interests of borrowing countries. 2000.which hardly anyone would deny. the Philippines. research associate at CEPR. was devastating. whereas from 1980-1998 it has only risen 6%. which maintains a non-convertible currency. as in Southeast Asia. senior policy analyst at CEPR. and represent the loss to an entire generation-. Most importantly. Bank economists David Dollar and Aart Kraay confront critics of World Bank/IMF policies with new empirical research on incomes in both developed and less developed countries. they had very high domestic savings rates. and other major violations of IMF/Bank prescriptions).[15] Growth declines everywhere the IMF/World Bank exert control Mark Weisbrot. accessed 12/7/02 In a paper released last March by the World Bank’s Development Research Group. and even sought to amend the Fund’s charter so as to be able to exert authority over the capital accounts of member countries. The more important question is: what has caused the dramatic slowdown in economic growth over the last two decades. August 7. and Gila Neta. which amounted to 11 percent of the combined GDP of Indonesia.net/response_to_dollar_kraay. August 7.htm.htm. while it has since fallen by 15 percent. Robert Naiman. co-directors of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). GDP per capita grew by 75% from 1960-1980. impose on borrowing countries. GDP per capita grew by 36 percent in the first period. in China (which has 83% of the population of East Asia). The IMF and its patron. As Stiglitz has noted. Even where growth was significant.of hundreds of millions of people-. the push for capital account liberalization may have more to do with the search by US mutual funds for foreign investment outlets than it did with the needs of borrowing countries. in particular.[14] But the crisis countries. South Korea. and openness to international trade. for example. over the last 18 years. Thailand. and Gila Neta. it is now widely recognized that the opening of financial markets in East Asia was the primary cause of the Asian financial crisis.or in many cases. and Dean Baker. The authors conclude that “growth generally does benefit the poor and that anyone who cares about the poor should favor the growth-enhancing policies of good rule of law. the real debate has never been about whether “growth does generally benefit the poor”-. and Dean Baker. These are enormous differences by any standard of comparison. For sub-Saharan Africa. fiscal discipline. In short. 2000. promoted this opening of capital markets.cepr. it was still better in the earlier period. accessed 12/7/02 There are other problems as well: IMF and World Bank economists do not necessarily know enough about specific country conditions to be making some of the decisions that they make. and Malaysia. Robert Naiman. The only exception to this trend was East Asia.of any chance of improving their living standards.”(p. the US Treasury Department.cepr. there is no region of the world that the Bank or Fund can point to as having succeeded through adopting the policies that they promote-.27) This research misses the mark in several crucial respects. For example. co-directors of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). which grew faster from 1980 to 1998 than in the previous period. (They are understandably reluctant to claim credit for China. had no need for the huge inflows of portfolio investment that ended up destabilizing their economies. state control over its banking system. senior policy analyst at CEPR. as it led to an enormous build-up of short-term foreign debt relative to reserves. et al.Planet Debate Free trade bad  IMF/World Bank Bad IMF/World Bank are only good for transferring money from developing nations to the US Mark Weisbrot. and how much of it is attributable to the policies of the IMF and the World Bank? In Latin America.net/response_to_dollar_kraay.

The debate over Dollar and Kraay’s paper.as the authors have-. the Fund and the Bank pay no heed. even ignoring income distribution.Planet Debate Free trade bad  IMF/World Bank Bad Even mainstream economists say that IMF/World Bank policies hurt the poor Mark Weisbrot. senior policy analyst at CEPR. has simply assumed-.htm.net/response_to_dollar_kraay. 2000. accessed 12/7/02 One cannot stress too strongly the failure of these policies on the measure of economic growth. research associate at CEPR. for example. This leaves a gaping hole in the debate over the policies of the world’s two most powerful financial institutions. co-directors of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). or Harvard’s Dani Rodrik questions the institutional overreaching on questions of openness. When prominent economists such as Jeffrey Sachs or former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz criticize the IMF’s macroeconomic policies. It allows the Fund and the Bank to continue imposing a whole cluster of failed policies repeatedly. and Dean Baker. but they are “getting the fundamentals right” so that countries will have the options to improve living standards for everyone. without their competence or the policies themselves being called into question. et al. Robert Naiman. But this is exactly what they have not done.that IMF/Bank policies do promote growth. August 7. The Fund simply repeats its assertions that it is helping developing countries to maintain macroeconomic stability. and Gila Neta. perhaps it (and the Bank) could do more to fight poverty and protect the environment. and to grow.cepr. http://www. and the only question is how well the poor have fared under the growth that has resulted from these policies. 32 .

Coordinator of the Anti-Globalisation Network. The impact of trade liberalization has hit subsistence farmers particularly hard.htm. The winners have been both the developed countries and the wealthiest people. 33 .” March 30.poptel.uk/panap/latest/wto10.org. “20 Excellent Reasons Why The WTO is Bad News.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Rich/poor gap Free trade magnifies the rich/poor gap Chris Keene. whilst poor countries and poor people have been increasingly marginalized. Trade liberalization does not benefit the majority of the world's population. http://www. accessed 8/23/03 The trade system is increasing inequality between the 'haves' and 'have-nots': The world trade system has increased the wealth of a narrow band of society. 2001.

Planet Debate Free trade bad  ***POLITICAL/SOCIAL 34 .

No wonder that the most affected states being ethnically mixed. Those who promote the global system of free trade even promise that the globalization of a neo-liberally interpreted trade will bring the world eternal peace.the so-called ongoing primitive accumulation. IMF and WTO policy. women. the former Soviet Union. Moreover.pdf. However. Women from EU countries must work together with the women from Central and Eastern Europe to ensure that the expansion of EU eastwards will not be carried out under the dictate of the neocolonial and neoliberal global war system. slavery and colonialism. 35 . and mercantilism Maria Mies. Similarly. applied pressure to reduce government spending on social. This war was previously prepared by the destabilization of the Yugoslav economy by means of all kinds of economic embargoes justified politically. Chossudowsky demonstrated convincingly how the policy of the WB and IMF really prepared the ground for these wars: it imposed neoliberal reforms which did not respect the identity of given countries. war. Mozambique). children and nature are always the main victims of neocolonial wars. It was done to set up globalized free trade in Kosovo under the protectorate controlled by the EU and USA. instead of distinguishing their real enemies. MERCOSUR etc. the next phase is being prepared . further enrichment of the already wealthy member states. That is why we. conquest. Professor of Sociology at the University of Applied Sciences. Cologne. www. Such neocolonial wars may break out wherever the neoliberal global system has the upper hand. Sermons about peaceful free trade are a myth. This leads to the growth of the military-industrial complex which has a particular interest in igniting ethnic unrest and. ethnic conflict. inequality among the nations and within individual nations has been growing more than ever before. in return. As Michel Chossudowsky and Silvia Federici showed – the new wars constitute the direct result of structural adjustments. a massive support for the import of goods from the West and devaluation of the currency led to the increase of prices of the bare necessities of life. they were labeled as civil wars due to old tribal dissensions. turned against their neighbors and began to murder one another. Women. however. When such wars broke out in Africa (Somalia. particularly in third world countries. must ask whether it is enough to care for the war victims and organize humanitarian help or whether we should challenge the global system of the so-called free trade which evidently brings about wars.ecn. In this sense we must interpret the words of Hazel Henderson in connection with the Persian Gulf war that war is good for the economy. the global system of world trade promoted by WB. unfortunately. we will realize that homilies about a peace-loving free trade are a myth. IMF and WTO ignites all over the world a new type of wars. Chossudowsky called that the re-colonizing of the Balkans. This phase provides the economies of EU and NATO member countries with new markets. possibilities to export advantageously environmentally unsuitable technologies and productions. They speak of the so-called ”level playing field” as a system guaranteeing equality to all the ”players” involved. Nowadays large groupings (NAFTA. Congo.cz/gaia/gb/life. even in Europe. The economic progress in Europe is to a large extent the result of colonial looting.) supposedly removed the causes of wars among rich countries. accessed 10/6/02 Trade is usually considered to be a peaceful occupation. as carried out by the WB together with the IMF. Since 1990.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Neo-colonialism/mercantilism Free trade causes neocolonial war. when they broke out in Russia (Chechnya) or Bosnia and Yugoslavia (Kosovo) they were labeled as the result of ethnic or religious conflicts and the efforts of minorities to become independent. Rwanda. EU. the fall of real wages and the ruin of agricultural production in these countries. cheap labor. World trade was everywhere promoted and constantly accompanied by piracy. 9/27/2000. health or educational programs. the Middle East and. just by looking at the past century. the last war in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo showed that the nationalist conflict between Kosovar Albanians and the Serbs had nothing in common with an honest effort aimed at national independence. Parallel to the present phase of the WB.

While they know their own culture inside out. modern Western culture appears vastly superior to their own. People are not aware of the negative social or psychological aspects of Western life so familiar to us: the stress. This lack of awareness is fostered by the cult of specialisation that pervades our society: the job of a public relations executive is confined to producing business-friendly sound bites. sitting at a desk or behind the wheel of a car does not constitute work. advertisers make it clear that westernised fashion accessories equal sophistication and ‘cool’. but by trying to ‘buy in’ to the global market.or green-coloured contact lenses aimed at ‘correcting’ dark eyes. 103-104 The Uruguay Round agreements are also likely to accelerate the evolution of a monoculture in areas such as media.org. the loneliness. In the commercial mass culture which fuels this illusion. Free trade destroys cultural diversity Martin Khor. TV news and feature programmes. This will be through the liberalization of services that would pressurize Third World countries to accept and receive the cultural and professional services of foreign companies and individuals. “The March of the Monoculture. Cultural diversity would thus be rapidly eroded. while time pressures and a narrow focus prevent a questioning of their overall impact. they see only a glossy. All provide overwhelming images of luxury and power. and certainly no glamour. Already now. In diverse ‘developing’ nations around the world. people end up rejecting their own ethnic and racial characteristics — to feel shame at being who they are. The people they learn to admire and respect on television are all ‘sophisticated’ city dwellers with fast cars and designer clothes. then. For millions of youths in rural areas of the world. as wealth is transferred away from nation states into the rootless casino of the financial markets. 1999. dark-haired Southern European women with hair dyed blonde. more recently.” http://www. poverty. the destruction of cultural integrity is far more subtle than before. and Africans with blue. “imported equals good. Director. homelessness and unemployment. Besides promoting the illusion that all Westerners are multi-millionaires. exaggerated side of life in the West. 1993. Director of the Third World Network. on ‘automatic pilot’ as an inevitable consequence of the spreading global economy. as it were. diabetes and heart problems. 36 . They see incoming tourists spend as much as $1. western films and products and. seven-year-old girls in Singapore are suffering from eating disorders.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Culture Free trade destroys indigenous culture Helena Norberg-Hodge. blonde-haired blue-eyed Barbie dolls and thin-as-a-rake ‘cover girls’ set the standard for women. p. Corporate and government executives no longer consciously plan the destruction they wreak — indeed they are often unaware of the consequences of their decisions on real people on the other side of the world. people are induced to meet their needs not through their community or local economy. spotlessly clean hands and shiny white teeth. rising crime. It is hardly surprising. The Case Against Free Trade. and also educational and health services. Since the largest and most powerful cultural enterprises belong to the North. and leads a life filled with excitement and glamour. Governments will find increasingly difficult to regulate or prevent such cultural and service imports. which is now able to disrupt traditional cultures with a shocking speed and finality which surpasses anything the world has witnessed before. Nor do they see the environmental decay.html Today. The Ecologist. in the words of US advertising executive in China. The tendency to undermine cultural diversity proceeds. beautiful and brave. The one-dimensional.uk/articles/march. But if the methods employed by the masters of the ‘Global Village’ are less brutal than in colonial times. including all of its limitations and imperfections. films. satellite television to the remotest parts of the earth. The computer and telecommunications revolutions have helped to speed up and strengthen the forces behind the march of a global monoculture. the fear of growing old. stroke. the scale and effects are often even more devastating. ‘Development’ brings tourism. fantasy view of modern life becomes a slap in the face for young people in the Third World.000 a day.” Even more alarming. the rise in clinical depression and other ‘industrial diseases’ like cancer. People are made to believe that.000 a day — the equivalent of a visitor to the US spending $50. tourism and media images also give the impression that we never work — since for many people in the ‘developing’ world. and it is not unusual to find East Asian women with eyes surgically altered to look more European. western consumer conformity it descending on the less-industrialised parst of the world like an avalanche. Preying on the young Today. ISEC. local equals crap. Around the world. the already rapid spread of modern Western-originating culture will be accelerated even more.isec. Teenagers in particular come to feel ashamed of their traditions and their origins. that many choose to abandon the old ways of their parents for the siren song of a western material paradise. Adverts and action films give the impression that everyone in the West is rich. Yet they find their parents asking them to choose a way of life that involves working in the fields and getting their hands dirty for little or no money.

4% in 1990-91 to 3. over 400 men. Transnationals hold the reins As a result to the US crop failure. It is the corporations that buy. create shortages and surpluses. or be able to develop. gains from trade liberalisation will be much smaller than losses in higher import costs. Under the free trade regime introduced in India. says Karen Lehman from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis. demand and commodity prices. In a world where 20 transnational companies control most of the worlds agricultural trade. corn imports had totalled $615 million. Recolonization. as Vandana Shiva says: "Cargill and Continental Grain are buying wheat at $60 to $100 per tonne from India and selling it at $230-240 per tonne on the international market. 1990. with the exception of sugar.with the coming into force of the NAFTA Agreement _ relying on the ability to purchase cheap U. A study by the Commonwealth Secretariat notes that in a world of ‘freer’ trade. medium term. For the agriculture negotiations.S. Editor-in-Chief of the Press Trust of India. may be.would recognise the distinctive role of small-scale farmers. liberalisation would be likely to cause or exacerbate balance of payments problerns in the short and. most Third World countries would prove to have. And this was no isolated event. making a neat $130-170 profit per tonne. But. former US President Reagan appointed a life-time executive official of the Cargill company . grain. and substantial financial support would be needed to help them overcome these difficulties. This might sound like good news for India. compared with $90 per ton in 1995. suck money from international organisations for emergency food relief. http://www. It comes as no surprise therefore.grain. compared with $365 million spent on imported corn during the entire year of 1994. Mexico is just an example: the Mexican government eliminated policies that encouraged domestic production and began . it is also clear that any liberalisation would result in higher world prices and thus increased import prices of food for the net food importing Third World countries. and their companies are the ones that push for and profit from trade liberalisation. an international competitive advantage in producing and exporting staple agricultural products at present exported under subsidy by the major ICs.org/publications/oct961-en. Now Mexican demand for imported grain is rising just when prices are high: imported corn is averaging $180 per ton this year. 174-175 Whatever be the merits or claims of long-term benefits through free trade and liberalisation.cfm Countries in which governments have surrendered food security programs based on self sufficiency to the whims of the global market are now in severe trouble. 37 . while India is loosing $100m in exports because of the concentration of power in the hands of five merchants of grain". October 1996.” Free trade causes global food instability Seedling. it does not make much sense to describe countries as economic units. trade-led food security policy isn't working". "For hungry people in Mexico. multinational grain traders such as the US giants Cargill and Continental Grain are turning to other producers. For this class of countries. By the end of June.to draft the US proposals and to serve as chief official negotiator. this paper attaches special importance to the concept of a ‘development clause’ which particularly for countries of Africa and Asia .Planet Debate Free trade bad  Food shortages Free trade causes increases in food prices Chakravarthi Raghavan. The food crisis is already affecting the poor: in late May. 1996. 40 tons of corn had disappeared into the community of San Nicolás de la Garza. For all these reasons. India's wheat exports have increased dramatically. manage most food aid and carry out commercial food transactions made by governments. women and children stopped a grain train in the settlement of Monterrey and carried its cargo off to their homes.4% in 1995-96.by far the world's largest agribusiness corporation . improved market access will not result in higher world prices. exports of cereals in percentage of total exports have increased from 1. At the end of the day. that the rules of global trade favour transnational agribusiness over all other interests. It is commonly said that it was the top executives of these companies who wrote the terms of the GATT Agreement. women hauled off the contraband in buckets and two-year-old children carried it across the tracks in plastic bags. p. trade and sell the staple food worldwide. manipulate supply. “Yet for most developing countries. Third World exports are concentrated in tropical products where. Shouting "We're hungry!".

Experience.000 farmworkers lost their jobs. It creates unnecessary economic strains and more goods have to be exported to set against the cost of imported food. bring one well-documented set of environmental and social problems. the massive increase in transport costs and damage through roads and pollution. Cheap food enables employers to hire cheap labour. Arguments start. state subsidies. The so-called world price of grains. and for preventing premature death and such disabilities as blindness and mental retardation. is actually the price set by subsidized exports from the overproducing Northern blocs. the policies which serve interests of traders are threatening the capacity of local farmers to feed their populations. In 1992.50 The UK Government’s response to this trade gap has been to encourage more exports. over what is an acceptable price for such food. The great irony is that there is more than enough food to go around. such that Southern countries gear their economies around exporting food.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Food shortages Free trade causes food instability crises Tim Lang. The shape of agriculture is quickly geared to others’ needs. rather than to subsidize or ensure that there is security of home supply. say Canada or Australia. a similar picture is emerging. a cheap food policy does not have a positive ring.9 billion people out of a total 5. So. dependent as the latter are on energy intensive methods and polluting inputs and. £6. and ushered in by market forces. exports grew by 13 per cent. but they have to trade for the pleasure. 1. Nation states such as the USA in the 1 980s and the UK in Victorian times can and do run horrendous balance of trade deficits — but most states. The size of farms has increased markedly. According to the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF). There are hidden costs to this approach. a fall of 20 per cent. coordinator of Greenpeace International’s Economic Unit. Asia and Latin America. The US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) estimates that the 50.000 full-time farmers and 50. UK policy was dominated by manufacturers and traders who favoured cheap food. and yet its food import bill is immense. It’s what UNICEF calls the ‘paradox of plenty. Director of Parents for Safe Food and Colin Hines. The numbers of people leaving or being driven from the land is huge.000 largest US farms will produce 75 per cent of all US food by the year 2000. It may often be a choice between who benefits from cheap food versus self-produced food. but imports grew by 8 per cent.3 billion more in 1991 than its food exports. often. If subsidized agriculture systems such as the Common Agricultural Policy. Affluent consumers and Northern countries can shop from the world’s bread basket.034 full.’ 38 . the figures on the failure to meet food needs are sobering. but did not encourage it directly. Here is a country blessed with ample water. for example. Globally. Such trade is almost as ludicrous as bottles of water jetting across the Atlantic from Europe. the classical free trade argument on food is to buy food on the world market.3 billion. eg for meat when refrigeration became possible in the late nineteenth century. not to stop imports of what could perfectly simply and effectively be grown here. 38 per cent of the US population worked on the land. p. Over 2 billion people subsist on diets deficient in the vitamins and minerals essential for normal growth and development. The imports of such food to the South undermines the production of local food staples. Developing countries’ agriculture cannot actually compete with these artificially low prices. Free traders will argue that the loss of jobs and heritage is the cost of cheap food and the advantage is that the proportion of a household budget expended on food has dropped. others imported French birds. and the £10 worth of packaging each UK family buys each week (90 per cent of which is thrown away after a single use). From the South’s perspective. with its massive surpluses produced by intensive farming. By the late 19th century. 93-95 Food is another classic case where failure to internalize full environmental and social costs has been damaging. Another threat comes from the demands of the world’s aid and trade system (plus the imperative of debt repayment). The UK food policy became an appendage to its trade policy rather than geared to meet the needs of its people. Across Europe. almost 20. Food imports really only became a significant proportion of domestic consumption when transport became easier and costs fell. The UK manufactured goods for export and fed its workers on colonially-derived food at lower cost than protected home agriculture or European sources could produce.49 These are the overt results and hidden environmental costs of agricultural intensification. On every continent. 1993. are nervous about food dependency. Concern is rising about the UK food trade gap.51 The repeal of the Corn Laws in the mid nineteenth century ended the protection of the home grown cereal markets and made more distant trade possible.and part-time agricultural jobs in 1980 to 293. which are excluded from the costs of the so-called cheap food. the loss of wildlife and habitat. In the UK. So while UK companies exported their poultry products for example. The UK has come to rely increasingly on imported foods. including: the nitrate pollution of water from fertiliser run-off. At the turn of the century. the total dropping from 366. with consequent enormous changes in land tenure and ecological stability. a third of the proportion spent 40 years ago. particularly in time of war. If that rural population was to be reduced to the levels of. one in five persons in the developing world suffers from chronic hunger — 800 million people in Africa. One of the unwritten responsibilities of state machines is to ensure reasonable supplies of food. however. now it is 3 per cent. The way food has been costed and the drive for efficiency has led to enormous reductions in the numbers employed on the land in the industrialized world. Lands which could produce staple crops are put down to cash crops for export. the UK food industry responded. between 1980 and 1990. free trade brings another.9 billion people would leave the land for towns and cities. even rich ones. pesticide residues. suggests that food security is not just an issue of balancing trade accounts. The average UK household in 1990 spent around 13 per cent of its income on food. Even in conventional terms the folly of this policy is apparent.053 in 1990. a soft climate. Recent figures put the world’s rural population at an estimated 2. The new protectionism.

This general assault. And. the West. both in determining the purpose for and influencing the actual conduct of war. as Keegan argues. would inspire the entire Islamic world to rise up against the West.” Strategies Studies Institute. http://www. rather than to satisfy a cultural impulse to wage war. Otherwise. the conflict between Al Qaeda and the West may indeed escalate into a more dangerous “clash of civilizations. military response to the attacks of September 11. Director of Strategic Research at the Strategic Studies Institute. accessed 8/23/03 Moreover. that is. has taken great pains to portray the conflict as a war against terror tactics rather than a war against Islam. Both President George W. globalization has actually increased the latter’s role.” Nonetheless. “Globalization And The Nature Of War.htm.51 Indeed. the fact remains that both sides are using war as a political instrument. Bush and terrorist leader Osama bin Laden have released statements that link their actions to very explicit political agendas. March. Both are clearly using war to achieve political ends. Al Qaeda’s leadership might have sought to provoke a massive U. it was hoped. To be sure. instead of culture displacing politics as the primary force behind conflict.org/WTO/2003/Globalization-War-SSI%20Mar03. culture and politics are inextricably linked in this conflict.S. they are subordinating its conduct to the achievement of political ends. it must continue to do so. conscious of this possibility. which it could then portray as an assault on Islam. 2003.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Culture conflicts Globalization increases culture related conflict Lieutenant Colonel Antulio Echevarria II.mindfully. 39 .

particularly in manufacturing. http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus. according to data from the International Labor Organization (ILO). 40 . at best. Scenes of life in sweatshops have provided consumers with a graphic illustration of the problem: a work force that is overwhelmingly young. and it is no wonder.html. resulting in illness. What’s wrong with these jobs? Women in developing countries generally receive lower pay than men for the same work. the world’s consumers rely on female labor.org/briefs/vol7/v7n15femtrade. loss of limbs. women may produce well over half of the world’s food. They are forced to work long hours for wages that often do not even meet the minimum guaranteed by local law. and others.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Patriarchy Free trade generates increased female wage labor Bama Athreya. accessed 8/24/03 The sweatshop issue has been of particular concern to women’s movements around the world. http://www. FAO studies note that when including informal participation in this sector. Women are also less likely to be given opportunities for training or promotion. since women are more often relegated to contract work without any social welfare benefits. or even loss of lives. accessed 8/24/03 Trade liberalization and the rise of export-oriented industries rely on female wage labor. according to reports by the National Labor Committee.org/briefs/vol7/v7n15femtrade.html. In agricultural industries. women make up approximately 43% of the formally documented agricultural work force. particularly in developing countries. It is hard to see how the global trade rules have benefited women. For instance. deputy director for the International Labor Rights Fund. Clean Clothes Campaign. In short. and female is pitted against a management that is overwhelmingly middle-aged and male. single. December 2002. The World Development Report estimates that women constitute 70-90% of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) worldwide. Female workers do not enjoy the same benefits as male workers. deputy director for the International Labor Rights Fund. women average 50-80% of wages earned by their male counterparts. workweeks of 60 to 80 hours are routine in China and many parts of Southeast Asia. and they are the first to be laid off in times of economic difficulty. The litany of routine abuses suffered by women workers worldwide in the light manufacturing industries has been well-documented. according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). December 2002.foreignpolicy-infocus. Free trade encourages female wage labor which is closely tied to oppression of women Bama Athreya. when the vast majority of new jobs available to women are just sweatshop jobs. The Maquila Health and Safety Support Network reports that women workers worldwide are routinely exposed to extremely unsafe working conditions.

after supervisors learned they were pregnant. it would be merely a first step in addressing the most fundamental rights violations suffered by women workers around the globe. women workers’ pay in order to coerce them to submit to sexual advances. and the Dominican Republic.S. one of the world’s top producers of garments for the U. bans union organizing in practice. Some recounted that they had been assigned to strenuous jobs that required heavy lifting. Required to live on the plantations. Mexico. Even in formal employment. http://www. deputy director for the International Labor Rights Fund. trading partners in Latin America and Asia. In both of these countries. Moreover. industrial settings are often so highly regimented that the time and space to organize are virtually nonexistent.html. electronic goods. Many women harvesting coffee and tea for export have kept silent about extreme sexual harassment—even rape—by their supervisors in order to keep their jobs. Nevertheless. December 2002. For example. In addition. trading partner in sub-Saharan Africa. Preliminary data gathered by the ILRF suggests that similar abuses are taking place among major U. while Kenya. market. the majority of workers in the EPZs are women. and repression of workers’ attempts to organize is often brutal. in light manufacturing industries. many female workers still rely on women’s organizations. Human Rights Watch reports in 1996 and 1998 documented the systematic use of pregnancy testing in Mexican factories producing clothing. Many women in both formal and informal employment find it impossible to gain access to freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. trade legislation.S. 41 . The Kenya research also revealed that supervisors frequently withhold.S. not unions. and household appliances for export to the United States. the right to organize is a remote dream for most women workers. male-dominated trade unions in some countries have been slow to organize young female manufacturing workers. has long prohibited organizing in its EPZs.foreignpolicy-infocus.S. to help them gain labor protections. and no laws exist to protect them from being assaulted by supervisors in the fields.org/briefs/vol7/v7n15femtrade. these women have no means of escape.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Patriarchy Free trade entrenches patriarchy Bama Athreya. Women workers face particular constraints and challenges not covered by these core labor rights. Although trade unionists in Central America are beginning to support organizing drives in the export processing areas. rather than risk losing their meager-but-much-needed incomes. Bangladesh. a top U. these women simply forced themselves to carry out the more strenuous work. but little documentation exists. or threaten to withhold. it appears that submission to sexual abuse may be among the untallied costs of retaining one’s job in the global economy. A 2002 report by the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF) documents violence against women in agricultural industries in Kenya. where women dominate the workplace. accessed 8/24/03 Even if this core right were included in U. Women who were interviewed reported that they were mistreated and forced to resign if they became pregnant. including Thailand.

107 Free trade shifts the power over economies and the quality of life further away from ordinary people. we draw attention to the false promise of free trade. p. The new protectionism.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Agency Free trade destroys agency Tim Lang. critical phase. The potential for people to become full citizens of their countries and of the world is being eroded by a process in which a narrower ethic of consumerism — you are what you consume — triumphs. The subversion of democracy is nothing new. A centuries-old tension between cultural convergence and diversity is entering a new. In this chapter. Director of Parents for Safe Food and Colin Hines. coordinator of Greenpeace International’s Economic Unit. deregulation can quietly disempower citizens. so often promoted as the economic theory that best introduces and ensures human liberty. 1993. In the name of free trade. Free trade’s ersatz global influence undermines the capacity of people to exert more control over their everyday lives. nor the exclusive property of free trade. 42 .

The rise of fascism and nazism in the 1930s began with the market’s collapse and coincided with — but was not caused by — the rise of protectionism. 43 . Alas. arguing that current trade policies disenfranchise people. Protectionism does not inevitably lead to racism. what should be called ‘free market fascism is growing on the back of another crisis in the markets. 153-154 This is nonsense. racism crosses all political boundaries. the New Protectionism will provide the kind of security where racism withers. via chauvinism. again. It positively celebrates cultural diversity and is therefore. which allows for both protection of individuals against powerful trading forces and for more just global development. On the one hand is the need to protect and defend the rights of working people and the underdog against uncontrolled capitalism. to racism.Planet Debate Free trade bad  A2: Racism Protectionism doesn’t cause racism Tim Lang. The association with racism is usually the argument against protectionism given by the Left. It seeks protection for all. For us.10 Racism is at its height when the majority of people feel under financial pressure and are generally insecure. rather than creeping cultural imperialism. coordinator of Greenpeace International’s Economic Unit. It aims for co-operation. The new protectionism. The New Protectionism seeks to defend and extend democracy. p. 1993. authoritarianism and tight state controls. Today. not just the few. There are contrary traditions at work on the Left concerning protectionism. worried about protectionism generating nationalism and hence. Director of Parents for Safe Food and Colin Hines. but on the other is a reflex internationalism which favours free trade thought. opposed to racism.

Planet Debate Free trade bad  ***ENVIRONMENT 44 .

diversity and decentralisation.nature. We must bring this war to an end. This awareness that in impoverishing other beings.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5. accessed 8/23/03 In giving food to other beings and species we maintain conditions for our own food security. 45 . In feeding earthworms we feed ourselves. Sustainability demands that we move out of the economic trap that is leaving no space for other species and other people. They must be changed. As a result things that should have high worth .” 2000.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Monocultures Globalization is unsustainble. This worldview of abundance is based on sharing and on a deep awareness of humans as members of the earth family. of compassion and sharing. Economic Globalisation has become a war against nature and the poor. http://news.given. The rules of globalisation are undermining the rules of justice and sustainability. In feeding cows. The biosphere has enough for everyone's needs if the global economy respects the limits set by sustainability and justice. The sustainability challenge for the new millennium is whether global economic man can move out of the worldview based on fear and scarcity. They can be changed. monocultures and monopolies. But the rules of globalisation are not god . “Poverty and Globalization. Founder Director of the Research Foundation for Science. we provide food for humans. Technology and Ecology. We have to move from market totalitarianism to an earth democracy. Obsession with production forces monocultures Vandana Shiva. and in providing food for the soil.bbc. culture.co. Globalisation is the rule of commerce and it has elevated Wall Street to be the only source of value. We can survive as a species only if we live by the rules of the biosphere. the future are being devalued and destroyed. Since Seattle. and respect and dignity for all beings. we nourish ourselves is the real basis of sustainability.stm. we feed the soil. we impoverish ourselves and in nourishing other beings. appropriation and dispossession and shift to a view based on abundance and sharing. a frequently used phrase has been the need for a rule based system.

ozone shield). These constraints are both global (greenhouse effect. It leads to a situation in which each country is trying to live beyond its own absorptive and regenerative capacities by importing these capacities from elsewhere. deforestation). and it is merely the fact that some have not yet reached their limits that allows other nations to import carrying capacity. p. The Case Against Free Trade. It converts a set of problems. It converts differing local constraints into an aggregated global constraint. the apparent escape from scale constraints enjoyed by some countries via trade depends on other countries’ willingness and ability to adopt the very discipline of limiting scale that the importing country is seeking to avoid. 1993. Free trade does not remove carrying capacity constraints—it just guarantees that nations will hit that constraint more or less simultaneously rather than sequentially. How it would be possible for all countries to be net exporters of goods and net importers of carrying capacity is not explained. But carried to extremes in the name of free trade it becomes destructive. economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank. In other words. Of course they pay for these capacities and all is well as long as other countries have made the complementary decision— namely to keep their own scale well below their own national carrying capacity in order to export some of its services. and local (soil erosion. Within limits this can be quite reasonable and justifiable. some of which are manageable.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Environment – general Free trade encourages global ecologically unsustainable growth Herman Daly. Trade between nations or regions offers a way of loosening local constraints by importing environmental services (including waste absorption) from elsewhere. What nations have actually made this complementary choice? All countries now aim to grow in scale. 46 . into one big unmanageable problem. 129-130 Sustainable development means living within environmental constraints of absorptive and regenerative capacities. Evidence that this is not understood is provided by the countless occasions when someone who really should know better points to The Netherlands or Hong Kong as both an example to be emulated. and as evidence that all countries could become as densely populated as these two.

attitudes toward balancing the values of economic development and environmental protection may differ profoundly.S. health or safety measures or raising the level of such protections. Under the existing GATT rules. Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.S. worker safety and health that are externalized in other countries—frequently by U.S. law called the Marine Mammal Protection Act as an unfair trade barrier at GATT. and trade challenges. law. There is scant systematic evidence to document how extensive this problem may be. The effect of the law had been to equalize environmental costs as between U. environmental regulation Lori Wallach. openness and public accountability over decision-makers has proved to be a procedural necessity for promoting strong environmental and consumer protection in the United States and around the world. the combination of procedural impediments to public participation.S. Free trade destroys U.S. As part of this process. Thus. the Government in the Sunshine Act. and thus a market advantage.S. 309 The most recent exceptions to the free-trade system revolve around the growing concern over how corporations may subvert environmental regulations by moving their operations to states with lax environmental controls (so as to avoid paying for costly pollution cleanup measures at home). 47 .S. health and safety laws are put at a competitive disadvantage to products imported by companies not required to meet the same product or process standards. consumer and health protection. From a consumer standpoint this means not giving a price advantage. however. 28-30 Second. and foreign fishers. Namely. the Mexican government was able to challenge the U. environmental and consumer advocates working on trade policy have been criticized for ignoring issues of national sovereignty. industry to internalize the environmental costs that are required of them by U. the current trade regime more subtly undermines a country’s establishing. maintaining and enforcing strong environmental. U. p.S. Third. in the international arena. trade sanctions. It is only through the ability of voters to hold decision-makers accountable that such laws have been passed over the objection of business interests.S. the Administrative Procedure Act and other federal and state procedural safeguards is sharply contrasted by the secrecy and exclusion that currently permeate trade policy formation and the dispute and standards-setting bodies that the NAFTA and Uruguay Round would establish. Rather. this means making it competitively possible for U. law established under current trade proposals will inevitably lead to increased pressure on U. -based multinational corporations that have relocated production to avoid just such costs. Thus. This is the case because the agreements require equal access to the U.S.S. Arlene Wilson of the Congressional Research Service observed that “a number of studies have shown that trade liberalization may reduce a country’s overall welfare if environmental resources are incorrectly priced.S. fishermen were already required to meet to sell their tuna in the United States.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Environment – regulations Free trade kills the environment Vincent Ferraro et al.S. to producers who fail to bear the burden of the cost of their production— namely costs to the environment. this challenge was successful and in August 1991. to know how to correctly price environmental protection—particularly since. the U. They must also ensure that businesses which comply with U. Thus. Years of citizen advocacy have resulted in systems of policy formation and decision-making in the United States that provide opportunity for aggregation of disparate public interests through public education and debate to push forward environmental and consumer laws. 1993. the concern is that trade policy should in no way inhibit the effective operation in the United States of U. This race to the bottom is absolutely contrary to urgently needed changes towards a more sustainable model of trade and development policies. we are asked why the United States should be able to make decisions about environmental and consumer protection levels for other countries. policy makers must have available the tools to enforce our laws. must be able to control access to our market by either banning or in some way equalizing the cost of products that do not meet our standards.S. threatened challenges and the competitive disadvantage of U.S. Professor of International Politics at Mount Holyoke College.S. policy makers to decrease the level of environmental. It is difficult. World Security Challenges for a New Century. the federal Advisory Committee Act. p. when the United States began enforcing the same dolphin protection rules for tuna fishing for imported tuna that U. 1998. dolphin protection act an illegal trade barrier that must be eliminated. From an environmental standpoint. The Case Against Free Trade. products of U. to effectively establish U. Thus. producers who follow current U. but there are a number of examples that suggest that the problem may be widespread. The openness provided by the Freedom of Information Act. companies which are complying with environmental. The U. a GATT dispute resolution panel declared that longstanding U. environmental and consumer argument is not about what other countries should do in reference to their own domestic standards.S. When insisting that the United States must maintain the ability to control access to its markets on the basis of “process” restrictions. Under this regime. standards. market of goods that are physically the same regardless of their production or harvesting processes. trade agreements must be harnessed to provide funding and technical assistance to help developing countries raise environmental and other social standards so that such market access restrictions do not continually and unfairly put these countries at a disadvantage. laws are not placed at a competitive disadvantage to those who do not comply.S.S. environmental and consumer protections.

p.1 The four billion tonnes of freight transported on ships in 1991 used up as much energy as was used by Brazil and Turkey combined. 61 The dramatic post-war increase in international trade means that more materials and goods are transported round the globe with a resulting increase in energy use and pollutants. 1993.3 But if it is cost effective to keep bringing citrus fruits 10. Roads now carry the majority of transport. the one from Alicante would only make financial sense if the full cost of energy was not included. Spain. One narrow Alpine valley. a box of croissants from Alicante. neatly packaged on the shelf. Across the road is a bakery which makes croissants on the premises. Air freight is much more energy intensive — it takes 47 times as much energy to carry a ton of goods a kilometre by air as it does by boat. as well as depleting a non-renewable resource. 48 . compared to 15 years ago when less polluting rail took 70 per cent. It may be profitable for the bakery in Alicante to mass produce croissants and ship them around 1. international acid deposition and global warming. More global trade creates waste and pollution by the very act of transporting goods over greater distances.000 miles from Latin America to Europe while Mediterannean countries dump fruit. the Inn Valley/Brenner pass.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Environment – transportation The transport of goods for free trade causes massive environmental destruction Tim Lang. takes 75 per cent of the total. for example. — the equivalent to 4. but this is environmentally highly destructive.4 In the middle European countries. public opposition to the growth of traffic has risen. If we compared the energy that went into the two croissants. The same problem arises within the European single market.500 miles to the UK.000. In a grocer’s shop in North London you can find. there is something wrong with the costings system. To these figures have to be added the energy consumed in the road and rail transport of these internationally traded goods. The transport involved in international trade is estimated to account for one eighth of world oil consumption. Director of Parents for Safe Food and Colin Hines.2 Extending such trade will increase energy consumption unless there are fantastic leaps in energy saving transport. The new protectionism. coordinator of Greenpeace International’s Economic Unit.000 tonnes a year. The 17 million tons of freight sent by plane used the equivalent of a year s energy consumption of the Philippines. Take croissants.2 billion 60 watt lightbulbs left on continously for a year. So does it really make sense to transport identical goods around the world in the name of free trade? The European Commission’s Taskforce on the Environment has calculated that there will be a 30—50 per cent increase in trans-frontier lorry traffic from 1993 with the trade liberalization following the opening of EC borders in the single market. Austria reported an increase in through traffic between 1975 and 1990 of 1. There are considerable differences in which kind and how much pollution different modes of transport cause. Transport fuelled by oil contributes to a wide range of environmental hazards — local air pollution.

htm. 2001. The trade system pays no heed to equity and distribution and does little to promote development and environmental protection. through trade and investment liberalization. http://www.org.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Environment – resource exploitation Free trade supports the unsustainble exploitation of resources Chris Keene.” March 30. Key principles of free trade.poptel. leading to a loss of natural habitats and biodiversity and negative impacts on local communities. and sees economic growth and increasing consumption as ends in themselves. The trade system ignores the fact that increasing consumption is depleting natural capital (the environment) on which the global economy is based. “20 Excellent Reasons Why The WTO is Bad News. such as comparative advantage and exportled development.uk/panap/latest/wto10. accessed 8/23/03 The principles on which the trade system is based are fundamentally flawed: The trade system pursues growth at all costs. 49 . have been discredited. Coordinator of the Anti-Globalisation Network. Increased trade also means more transport.

DA regulators were frantically trying to catch up with the global marketplace and its "dramatically increased" biological risks. insisted that after approving methyl bromide fumigation of imported Red and Golden Delicious apples. Free trade ensures the spread of invasive species. McDonald's. agricultural exports. the greens get some official support. Globetrotting organisms.S.S.e. trade officials and agricultural representatives say this shows how well the WTO agreement is working--just like America's own rules against invasive pests. http://www. and infection.com/feature2. the whole process of economic globalization is just one aspect of a biological globalization that is transforming ecosystems as well as societies everywhere. appealed the European ban on hormonetreated beef. forestry. 1999. by one estimate..” November 30. using inadequate organization.tompaine. uncoordinated responses to other countries' SPS rules. And the General Accounting Office two years ago dinged the government's haphazard. technology." says one trade official. The costs are already enormous. It concluded that U. The WTO overturned all these bans and rejected them again on appeal. after habitat loss. Indeed. Across the globe. “WTO: The Beetle that Roared.cfm/ID/2578. homogenization--is unfolding with eerie parallels to the trade harmonization that is the great goal of free trade advocates everywhere. conquering new habitats the way exporters conquer new markets.S. In their criticisms of U. One concerned plants: The U. and WTO schemes pay too little heed to the precautionary principle and too much to free trade. http://www.tompaine. zero for protection/protectionism. and scientific resources. And the most controversial case involved food safety: The U. 50 . biological "harmonization"--i. On every continent you'll encounter the same house sparrow.” November 30. exotic pests cost U.com/feature2. law. "We're confident those (WTO) rules provide us the latitude to do anything we would under U. agriculture. Last July the National Plant Board issued a report commissioned by the U. SCORE THREE FOR TRADE. through competition. from microscopic pathogens to mighty trees and ubiquitous homo sapiens.S. are discovering the joys of comparative advantage. Environmental protections are overturned by the WTO Eric Scigliano. efforts. the greens counter: Both the U. a global ecological time bomb whose explosive potential is just starting to get full attention. Japan couldn't require a whole round of new testing on Fujis and Galas (the varieties Japanese consumers actually buy). and construction $80 billion a year. Mariah Carey tunes. That's just the problem. Department of Agriculture criticizing the efforts to stem invasive pests. The ecological effects are even more alarming. predation. of extinction and lost biodiversity. One concerned animal health and safety: Canada.S.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Environment – invasive species Free trade causes the spread of invasive species Eric Scigliano. accessed 8/23/03 SPECIES INVASIONS ARE the dark side of surging international trade and travel. more than the value of U.cfm/ID/2578. contested Australia's salmon rules. backed by the United States.S. 1999. invasive species are now widely considered the second most important cause.S.S. and HIV.S. accessed 8/23/03 So far the WTO has heard three cases of alleged protectionism disguised as sanitary rules--conveniently speaking to each of the three main areas of SPS protection. “WTO: The Beetle that Roared. U.S.

Planet Debate Free trade bad  ***NO IMPACT 51 .

May 26. is that such disagreements are very unlikely to escalate to military conflicts. they rely on global supply chains. multinationals are not invulnerable. as a consequence. The sharing of burdens and responsibilities for maintaining international security and protecting the natural environment are a further subject of debate among the great powers. Furthermore. however. It is much easier to convince politicians that lashing out at foreigners is a bad idea if it directly imperils jobs and prosperity at home. which the United States steadfastly opposes. those networks are highly sensitive to trade disruptions. such as steel tariffs. As the impact of stricter US border security after September 11 showed.Planet Debate Free trade bad  Trade wars don’t escalate Trade conflicts don’t escalate Joseph Nye. assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. are increasingly confined to industries that produce only in their home market. That argument has made free-traders of governors of many US states that are home to foreign-owned companies. Disagreements are likely to continue over regional conflicts. like those that have arisen over how to deal with the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. in contrast to the views of classical Liberals. 2003 Nonetheless. Washington Quarterly. more than a third of world trade today is within companies. The main point. 1996 The low likelihood of direct great power clashes does not mean that there will be no tensions between them. 52 . Globalization short-circuits trade conflicts before they can escalate. It is self-correcting Financial Times. It also explains why protectionist US measures. Increasingly. as is the case over Russian and Chinese nuclear cooperation with Iran. Winter. increased trade and economic interdependence can increase as well as decrease conflict and competition among trading partners. Efforts to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction and means of their delivery are another source of friction. The good news is that global integration is a potent check on governments' temptation to reach for the trade weapon.