November 9, 2001
Mr. Mike Moore, the Director General of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has confirmed that the WTO’s Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar will hold from November 9 to 13. The meeting is expected to launch a new round of crucial trade talks after a 1999 meeting in Seattle ended in a shambles, with massive protests by a wide range of groups concerned about one aspect or the other of economic globalization. As a result, the WTO’s proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) was defeated. Those same groups are still opposed to another round of trade talks scheduled to start in Doha.
The Greenpeace, for example, wants the WTO to scrap this round of free-trade talks and instead to focus on the environmental impact of its policies. Many poor countries are resisting participation in a new round of WTO talks, arguing that rich countries must first remove subsidies and other measures that make it hard for the products of the developing world to compete in their markets. Critics express strong disapproval of the bilateral pressures and bullying tactics being brought upon many developing countries (presumably including Nigeria) to ensure that they go along with the new round of negotiations.
"Why this relentless pursuit of trade liberalization?", one might ask. The primary reason is that multinational corporations want rules and commitments that are global, irreversible, and binding on all countries. This is to reduce the hassle of negotiating with individual governments and to eliminate or at least reduce considerably the costs of complying with the different regulations they face in the different countries where they operate. But critics point out that countries are different, they are at different stages of development, and have different needs. Therefore, uniform trade rules are not necessarily in every country’s interest. Moreover, they argue that such global rules reduce the freedom of each country to make its economic policy choices and gives WTO an unwarranted oversight role on governments.
Just as Free Will is the right of the individual, so it is for groups of individuals or countries. Thus, the rounds of trade negotiations are seen as processes to undermine the democratic rights of poor and weak countries, which can be easily intimidated. Furthermore, those who protest WTO assert that the primary beneficiaries of its policies are the developed countries and their citizens who are the major shareholders of the global companies.
Let us put aside those considerations (although they are important) and examine the issue of free trade from the perspectives of commonsense and natural philosophy. The fact that the world has become a global village argues for a measure of trade liberalization. In the global village, one should not deliberately erect barriers against trade, just as we would not do in our ordinary villages. One must admit, however, that each household in the village does have the right to decide what may be hawked on its doorsteps. Furthermore, one of the Laws that express the Will of God is the Law of Balance between giving and taking. This Law is fundamental in the relationships among individuals, groups, and countries. The Law implies that there must be exchange.
Therefore, it is necessary for nations to exchange goods, services, ideas, etc. Since trade is one way of achieving such an exchange (although by no means the only way), it can be said that it is the Will of God that nations should engage in international trade.
The Law of Balance implies that each country must export as well as import, and there should be a measure of balance between export and import in terms of value. In short, international trade must be balanced and, therefore, just and fair. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Among the factors militating against balance are the exceedingly wide gap in economic and other power between the rich and the poor nations of the world. The poor countries cannot refuse to export some of their commodities (such as petroleum) and the rich countries may refuse to export some of their own (such as certain technologies).
On the other hand, the rich and more developed countries can distort the consumption patterns of the poorer countries and dump products and services on their markets. Thereby they undermine local production of goods and services and reduce job opportunities. Poor countries cannot affect the economies of rich countries in like manner. Obviously, it is unnatural for an accountable government to agree to the destruction of its own job opportunities and the consequent pauperization of its people just to comply with international agreements. Thus, there are natural limits to free trade.
There are also certain unfair practices that put the poor nations at a disadvantage in international commercial transactions. The prices of the commodities produced by them are for ever falling, while the costs of the industrial products they need for their development are for ever rising. In short, the poor and weak nations are made to sell cheaply and to buy dearly. Thus, there is a built-in imbalance in the existing trade system. Therefore, the first step in international trade negotiations ought to be about correcting this imbalance. But, unfortunately, that’s not WTO’s priority. The current system is unsustainable to the extent that it goes against the God-willed Law of Balance.
Another relevant piece of knowledge is that in any association between the strong and the weak, there is always the possibility (even the likelihood) of the "absorption" of the weak by the strong. Let me explain. If, for example, a team that includes one famous man makes a highly significant accomplishment, the tendency is for most of the credit to go to (i.e. be "absorbed" by) the famous man, even if his/her role was marginal. When, for instance, people speak of the free primary education programme of the government of the old Western Region of Nigeria, they always think of Chief Awolowo; they do not remember members of his cabinet or even his minister of education. Credit for government accomplishments always tends to flow to the head of the government (the strongest member of the team), regardless of his/her real contribution. The "absorption" of the strong by the weak is the effect of the Law of Movement, which ensures that any talent that is exercised gets better developed, and one that is not used is simply lost.
The spiritual process is such that a well-developed talent attracts similar talents, and gets even stronger in conformity with the Law of Attraction of Similar Species, and in the manner that a famous person attracts more fame to herself/himself. And this leads to the phenomenon of "success breeding success, and failure inviting further failure". This natural principle is stated elegantly in the Parable of the Talents (The Bible, Matthew 25, verse 29): "For unto every one that hath shall be given and he shall have abundance, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath". In international trade, the stronger, richer countries get richer, the weaker, poorer countries get poorer. This is why a system of absolutely unrestricted trade between poor countries and rich countries should not be advocated.
An implication is that free trade makes sense only when it can be balanced and fair to all the parties involved. This is only likely to be the case among nations at comparable levels of economic development. Among them, a balance of exports and imports could always be achieved. Another implication of the natural process whereby the strong "absorbs" the weak is the need for countries of the Third World to strive to become strong through working harder and making sacrifices for their own development. They should start by removing all the quite obvious obstacles to development, such as pervasive corruption, unaccountable leadership, suppression of human rights, stifling of individual initiatives, wrong political, economic and social structures, etc. Respecting the Law of Movement, they should fight unjust international economic and financial structures, develop just alternatives and vigorously solicit support for such alternatives.
It should be noted that it is only a viable and strong domestic economy (which can only be built on a foundation of hard work, peace and justice) that can successfully engage in international trade. The principle of "success breeds success" also applies to foreign investment. Only strong domestic economies developed on a foundation of rational and stable political and social systems can attract foreign investments. Foreigners will not invest in failing states characterized by incessant religious and ethnic bloodletting, high crime rates, and irresponsible and corrupt leadership. It does not matter what international agreements such countries enter into.
Every country is the architect of its own fortune and misfortune. In general, one can state that happy and harmonious relationships, including human and economic relationships, as well as sustainable development can be achieved only through the correct (and, therefore, rational) application of the principles that express the Will of God. Readers interested in these principles and in non-sectarian spiritual knowledge may wish to study the work "In the Light of Truth, The Grail Message" by Abd-ru-shin (civil names Oskar Ernst Bernhardt), which has been translated into all the major languages of the world.
Guides
WTO and the Limits of Trade Liberalization