Contribution No.2 to the debate on FREE TRADE :
(Quoted from
an article in Land and Liberty, Spring 2000) By Godfrey Dunkley
Awakened by a burglar alarm sounding, one realises that a neighbour’s
house is possibly being burgled. The gangs of burglars often come in smart
vehicles that do not raise suspicion. This once common occurrence in a quiet
neighbourhood has been significantly reduced since a neighbourhood watch was
formed.
Recent events in Seattle by demonstrators from many walks of life
and different communities sounded the alarm on plans being made behind closed
doors by the World Trade Organisation
(WTO).
The WTO are believed to be planning total freedom of trade that
cannot be limited by any individual nation, no matter what the consequences may
be to local trade, production, employment or ecology.
What is known about the people who plan in secrecy? Are they
answerable under any particular nation’s laws? Are they bound by any accepted
business ethics or morality that may restrain their thinking and behaviour?
Henry George advocated free trade and gave a well-reasoned case
for it. The International Union for Land Value Taxation and Free Trade has free
trade as one of its basic principles. However, is this not of necessity coupled
to the full application of Land Value Taxation (LVT) and the abolition of
indirect taxation and taxes on production?
Free trade in slaves had to be abolished by national and
international laws! But colonialism changed the process of taking slaves to the
workplace, to taking the workplace to the economic slaves!
Harold McMillan’s
“Winds of Change” and the dismantling of empires transferred political control
to the newly independent colonies and replaced it by a still tighter grip over
their economies. The main advantage was that responsibility for the inevitable
economic failure was transferred from the colonial powers to the “inefficient”
local governments who were destined to reap the bad crop planted by first world
powers and sometimes ruthless profit-driven international conglomerates. The
colonial powers were able to walk away with “clean hands”.
Subsistence farming has been largely replaced by lucrative cash
crop farming, until the local skills for survival have been lost. This was
often followed by over production, a glut in world markets and the bottom
falling out of prices. In most cases when prices drop the farmer cannot afford
to feed his family nor can they live on the cash.
History is full of examples of the above: During the Irish potato
famine, wheat was being exported to England but the farmers could not afford to
buy it. The East African groundnut scheme replaced much subsistence farming and
then collapsed. Working in rubber, cocoa or coffee plantations the labourers
receive a pittance compared to the world prices and so become economic slaves.
The recent military coupe in Ivory Coast was triggered by the slump in cocoa
prices. Who can live on cocoa?
Free trade in international currency has made unearned fortunes
for some and “robbed” an equivalent amount from others, frequently impoverished
nations.
Alternatively, free trade backed by international LVT on all land
and natural resources including the air-waves and landing rights, coupled with
ecological taxes on extraction and waste control could well improve the general
standard of living. This would also require high ethical standards and
international laws.
However, free trade as appears to be planned by the WTO could be
a recipe for world disaster. No country will be able to protect their industry
or farming from unfair dumping nor their ecology from malpractice. Patenting of
existing natural crops together with genetic engineering is designed to place
control in the hands of a few and make some wealthy at the expense of others.
Genetic engineering could replace proven hardy crops by others that are not
self-reproducing. This could result, in time, in world starvation.
No, free trade cannot be tolerated without total transparency and
coupled with international LVT. Otherwise, what is to stop specific parties
with vested interests from acting under the umbrella of the WTO? What can stop those who seek total power as
never before experienced, from acting for individual profit rather than the
good of the whole?
We in the International Union should seriously consider removing
the words “Free Trade” from our name until such time as the other requirements
are achieved. (Not in my lifetime!)
Godfrey Dunkley.
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
The reader's comments are very welcome. Please send a letter to the
International Georgist Union, 212 Piccadilly, W1J 9HG, United Kingdom, or
e-mail to iu@interunion.org.uk
Back to 'Contributers to the debate
on FREE TRADE'; click here!