It seems to me that this problem is somewhat similar to my objections to the war in Iraq. I think that more is wrong with letting whatever nitwit is in the White House this year be the sole judge of what regimes need change than any risk Saddam Hussein actually posed to the world.

In the same light, I might agree with a proposal that nations with trade sanctions motivated by serious differences in underlying regulatory values should not be viewed as inherently illegitimate. But, I don’t want just anybody to be able to come to the conclusion that some difference in values merits trade restrictions. I’m willing to admit that the UN is not necessarily the best place for that sort of judgment, but that is the kind of place to start. At the very least, I should think that an EU state which wishes to impose such sanctions should have to seek the approval of the European Parliament, or perhaps a qualified majority in the European Commission - something that demonstrates plausibly that this isn’t just protectionism but reflects a genuine international opposition, not just one state or one government being a stick in the mud. If there is a deep dispute that really does divide the world, I think it makes some sense to respect it rather than push for free trade over all other considerations.

The GMO fight is certainly a real factor in reopening this question of what the limits to free trade are, but I suspect you’re right that this proposal is just political manoeuvering.

dear oh dear Scott, it seems I concur. We should be careful, people will start talking.

“In the same light, I might agree with a proposal that nations with trade sanctions motivated by serious differences in underlying regulatory values should not be viewed as inherently illegitimate.”

I don’t see that this offers any empirical method of determining what “serious differences in underlying regulatory values” are, or how one might go about discriminating between serious and silly differences. F’rex, I personally see the public attitude of most anti-GMO Europeans as exceedingly silly, bordering on Luddite. A European, in turn, might well see a claim that an implicit subsidy to or protection for, say, Boeing on the basis of U.S. national security is silly. In both cases and countless others, a massive difference exists across borders (and even within them) as to what is or is not serious and important.

If you open up this barn-door, all you’ve done is given every anti-free-trader a nice argument that is, in the end, impossible to refute. Values cannot be meaningfully disputed, they just _are_.

That’s actually why I find myself so intolerant of many non-U.S. attempts to modify U.S. behavior with regards to Iraq and similar matters. They appeal to a universality of values that I don’t believe exists.

Bernard Guerrero

That’s actually why I find myself so intolerant of many non-U.S. attempts to modify U.S. behavior with regards to Iraq and similar matters. They appeal to a universality of values that I don’t believe exists.

Kinda like religion then.
…but you gotta make that profession of faith if you don’t want to be pushed out of the congregation.

“Kinda like religion then.
…but you gotta make that profession of faith if you don’t want to be pushed out of the congregation.”

Very much like religion, yes. Where I differ, I suppose, is that I don’t think anybody will really get “pushed out of the congregation”.

In a small town where individuals are subject to all the little social bonding rituals and cues that have developed over eons of living in small groups? Sure. But nations are really just faceless distributions of interests. Many in the U.S. may not like the actions of “France” on the basis of values, and many French may feel the same way about the actions of the “United States”, but the two systems will continue to co-operate (or not) on the same basis they always have: systemic self-interest.

Bernard Guerrero

But nations are really just faceless distributions of interests.

Nations are social hierarchies with one person on top. Within that community of national leaders,
there is another social hierarchy.

Those national leaders would rather that George W. Bush would be toppled from within because toppling him from without would likely be as damaging to them as to him, but if American voters don’t do the job in November…

It would only be self-protection.

“Those national leaders would rather that George W. Bush would be toppled from within because toppling him from without would likely be as damaging to them as to him, but if American voters don’t do the job in November…

It would only be self-protection.”

Amusing, but overblown. Nobody above Kim Jong Il in the pecking order is likely to have a positive expected return on such activity. :^)

Bernard Guerrero, odds-maker

Given the Bush Administration’s substantial dependency on external debt for government funding, it is not altogether unfeasible.

“Nations are social hierarchies with one person on top”

No I know why I opted-out of having one.