Negotiating the trade seas

Commerce has always been the foundation of international affairs. Most transnational diplomacy is centered around trade. Most wars have to do with access to resources.

European colonialism in Asia and Africa was not about 'the white man's burden' of civilizing the barbarians. It was about improving commercial prospects and access to free or cheap (thanks to forced labor) raw materials for European merchants. Leopold didn't have the Congo raped for his health, you know.

The US government didn't invade Iraq to impose democracy or fight terrorism. It invaded to improve prospects for US companies in the region. Of course, it backfired thanks to the unanticipated (by the Bush administration, not by sensible people) chaos it caused. But still, the government has already spent over $362 billion on Iraq. You can bet your bottom dollar that most of that money ended up in the pockets not of GIs but of corporations. No bonus points for guessing which country's companies got the lion's share of the booty.

In fact, the very first war fought by the independent United States (and most subsequent wars for that matter) was commercial: against the Barbary pirates who were harassing American ships in the Mediterrannean.

The US had no diplomatic relations with China from the time it turned communist in 1949 until the 1970s. But in the last two decades, relations between China and the US have gotten much closer. China remains a repressive dictatorship, but is essentially no longer communist. Iran is also a repressive non-communist dictatorship.

How come US-Chinese relations are comfortable while US-Iranian relations are cold? One has trade at its heart and one does not. Only when trade is not important to a bilateral relationship do other factors like democracy, human rights and the like come into play, almost always as a bludgeon.

This is why the US government relentlessly attacks Iran and North Korea, with whom it has virtually no commercial relationship, but remains allied with comparably dubious regimes like Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea, both of whom have key oil reserves. This is why George W. Bush and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez may trade barbs from now until eternity but they will never impose trade sanctions on the other; the Bush needs Venezuelan oil and Chavez needs American oil money.

This is not new and is not unique to the United States. All countries act this way and have done so since forever. In relations between countries, trade doesn't trump other values. It IS The Value. This is why the increasing influence of non-governmental organizations is so important, as it injects a little pesky morality into the debate.

But trade remains central to global affairs. The BBC World Service has an excellent pair of documentaries on international trade negotiations. Anyone under the delusion that free trade is the goal of such deliberations is in for a serious reailty check. An illuminating look at a world that's as secretive as it is important.

There was a time when I once supported free trade in theory. And I still do in theory, but I've also come to the conclusion that free trade doesn't exist in reality. So it's best to make sure that it's done in the most humane way possible for the most people.

"But wait Brian, there is NAFTA. There is the WTO. There is the EU. These entities are entirely devoted to free trade."

Really?

Free trade means the freedom of unhindered movement of goods and services between countries.

Labor is a commodity. Yet nearly every country closely regulates the labor (people) that can come across into its territory. Free movement of services? Ask Mexican migrant farm workers.

Have you taken a look at the NAFTA treaty? At the WTO's mechanisms? At the EU's regulations? Why does a simple concept like free trade need such immensely complex documents and procedures to define it? Free trade doesn't need rules. Free trade is the absence of rules.

The answer is that free trade really doesn't exist. Free trade is what governments try to extract from the other guy for their nation's corporations. Protectionism is what governments are expected to defend by their workers. Industries wanted to be protected at home so long as they don't lose market access abroad. It's when these two notions collide that conflicts occur.

It's time leave the realm of idelogical fantasyland with regard to the relationship between commerce and foreign policy and start being honest about how trade really functions. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can have a rational discussion on what trade policies best advance the interests of people.

Update: US watchdogs reveal that huge chunks of money destined for Iraq reconstruction have mysteriously vanished.