•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   
•    EYEWITNESS   

Discussion of trade policy is often couched in terms of a conflict between free trade and fair trade. Under this paradigm, if trade is made freer it becomes less fair, and the only way to make trade fairer is to make it less free. But can free trade be fair?

Those who argue that the existence of low-wage countries makes the economic playing field uneven and therefore unfair are, logically, arguing for a single global wage rate. This is a fascinating proposition advocated by the far right, but closely attuned to the philosophy of Karl Marx.

Until we have a one-world government setting a one-world wage rate, protectionists will continue to argue for tariffs and other restrictions on imports of goods from low-wage countries.

In Australia, the minimum wage is 15.5 Australian dollars an hour, while rates in overseas factories producing cheap socks and underpants are about 80 cents an hour. A tariff of more than 1,000 percent would be needed to cancel out the competitive advantage of low-wage countries over Australia.

The alternative to these super tariffs would be to drive Australian wages down toward 80 cents an hour. But why should Australian workers be forced into a race to the bottom, competing on wages with poverty-stricken, low-wage countries, just so that we can produce our own socks and underpants? Rather, Australia’s future is as a high-skill, high-wage country.

And what of those people in poor countries who have moved out of subsistence agriculture and are doing better by gaining a wage producing low-wage goods for export?

The existence of people struggling on very low wages is not unfair to rich countries; it is unfair to those people and the families they are trying to support. For them, free trade is fair. If we have any compassion for them we should agree.

In any society there are two categories of people: producers and consumers. All producers are consumers but not all consumers are producers. Advocates of trade restrictions argue that limiting imports is in the national interest.

But import restrictions increase the cost of living for consumers. How can it be in the national interest to impose higher living costs on consumers? For those of us who seek a fairer society, tariffs and quotas are regressive, as they impose a disproportionately heavy burden on the poor.

In the aftermath of the Great Depression and World War II, major countries decided to establish a set of rules by which world trade would be conducted. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade developed rules designed to ensure free trade was actually fair.

Members of the GATT’s successor body, the World Trade Organization, are not allowed to increase tariffs above established rates. They are obliged to comply with limits on subsidies they apply to domestic industries. They are constrained in dumping products on export markets.

When the GATT was formed in 1947 it had 23 member countries. By the time the WTO was established in 1994 it had 128. Now the WTO has 153 members, with four other countries, including Russia, due to ratify their membership this year.

Not one country has decided to leave the WTO. Sure, the WTO’s rule book contains loopholes and has pages missing. However, trade is freer and fairer than would be the case if there were no rules. The objectives of free trade and fair trade are best served by applying the rules to everyone and making sure the rules cover all unfair practices. That’s exactly what the Doha Development Round of global trade negotiations has been seeking to do for more than a decade.

A successfully completed Doha Round would result in the elimination of agricultural export subsidies, the application of strict limits on farm subsidies, further reductions in industrial tariffs and tighter disciplines against dumping.

However, this has proved elusive. Australia’s plan, backed by about 50 countries at the WTO ministerial conference in Geneva last month, is to break the round into more manageable parts and bring them to conclusion as they become ready.

A prime candidate for early agreement, for example, could be trade facilitation. This would involve expediting the movement, release and clearance of goods.

The European Commission released a study in October last year that estimates a trade facilitation agreement could boost global gross domestic product by about $67 billion. Much of the gain would flow to developing countries, helping to liberate millions of the world’s poor from poverty. This is when free trade is at its fairest.

Craig Emerson is Australia’s trade minister.