The navel and the WTO antidote

Guest Columns by Sauvik Chakraverti,

The Newindpress on Sunday, 2007-2008

The navel and the WTO antidote

Indian philosophers have stressed that only through 'contemplating the navel' can one arrive at the Big Truth. When I follow this advice and gaze upon my belly-button, the profoundest realisation I achieve is this: I am alone. As the poet Walt Whitman put it, I am 'a simple, separate person'. Through my navel, I was 'attached' to my mother, yes, but that was before I was born. From the moment of birth, I have been separate. From this realisation, various second-order deductions follow.

As soon as contemplating the navel reveals the importance of the Individual, it simultaneously establishes the limited utility of the word 'we'. Yes, my family and friends may be a group to which I belong, but even this 'we' is something in which we remain individuals. The 'we' in the case of family and friends does not override the 'I'. Many friends are dearer than family; many members of the extended clan I actually dislike. And then, beyond that, of course, the Big Truth hits you like a bolt of lightning: beyond family and friends, the rest of humanity are complete strangers. 'We' ceases to operate. My navel tells me that I am an Individual, always.

There are many seductive words in the political lexicon that look at the world the other way around and place the 'we' above the 'I', like communism, socialism and 'hindutva'. To liberals, these are horribly false world-views. Words like 'nation' and 'democracy' also invoke the false magic of 'we'. Liberals look at the world as composed of individuals seeking their existence in the voluntary, one-to-one, win-win game of trade.

Which brings me to the 'whither trade organisation' that just met at Hong Kong and failed to come up with much. If it is individuals who trade, what is the need to get all the 'nations' - in the name of 'we' - involved in something so critical as a free, globally competitive world market? Do we need politicians and diplomats negotiating global trade deals in our interest? Or are our interests best served if these politicians and diplomats clear out of the way and let international trade freely occur between freely trading individuals?

Politicians and diplomats engaged in global trade negotiations hide behind the term 'reciprocity'. They believe that if trade concessions are not reciprocated, the 'nation' will lose. They represent the Big We: the nation. But hold it, reciprocity is meaningless when individuals trade in the market, and it can never be meaningful between nations.

Let us forget about the politicians and diplomats for a while, and imagine we are all shopkeepers in a big marketplace. I own a bar that also serves non-vegetarian food. Now, the tailor-master next door is a teetotaller and a strict vegetarian. He never gives me custom. The last 20 years that I have known him, he has never spent a paisa in my establishment. But I always go to him to get my shirts and trousers stitched. Am I doing something stupid? After all, he is the best tailor in town. Should I get my new suit stitched by that very drunken tailor, my very good customer, the last to leave my bar every night, whose hands shake a lot?

Similarly, the government of France disallows the entry of Alfonso mangoes. Does that mean we should not import French wines and cheeses? If we unilaterally open up trade, we gain by being able to consume French wines and cheeses; and the French lose by being forced to consume horrible mangoes from Venezuela, thanks to trade restrictions imposed by their stupid government! If politicians and diplomats stall trade in order to 'bargain' in the interest of the mango business, they will cause losses to all our wine and cheese importers (and consumers).

Similarly, if we import Laila basmati rice from Pakistan, and allow in their delicious mangoes and all the exquisite onyx Pakistan is famous for, we gain. If the Pakistani government does not allow us to sell their people our arecanut, paan masala, tea, coffee, spices, music… it is their people who lose, not us. If the US and the EU sell us subsidised wheat, our poor people get cheap food.

In the market economy, where we all interact is individuals, 'reciprocity' is meaningless. We are all free to take our custom wherever we please, with no obligation whatsoever to buy from those who buy from us. The word 'reciprocity' exists only in politics, and refers to the necessary conditions for establishing diplomatic ties. By trying to find reciprocity in the market, diplomats and politicians are extending their legitimate sphere, which is international politics, to an area from which they should be debarred: the global free market.

Hong Kong, where the WTO met, is a very good example of economic success through unilateral free trade. Without any negotiations, the former British colony plunged into free trade - and the rest is history. India should do exactly the same. As individuals, we all have enormous gains to expect from free trade. We should not allow the Big We to come in the way.

Remember, we go to the market as buyers. We work and earn in order to buy everything we need. Similarly, we enter international trade in order to import. All imported goods are more valuable to us because they are scarce. Unilateral free trade will give every individual Indian the opportunity to buy the best products from all over the world. Every individual Indian will find that his individual possessions have multiplied and also improved in quality.

If my reader is still in doubt, I suggest the following mental exercise: first, take an inventory of all the personal possessions of all the citizens of your town. Now, imagine unilateral free trade is instituted. Then, one year later, take another inventory. Will their total possessions increase or decrease? Of course, they will hugely increase. Thus, we do not need the WTO, and the Big We it represents. We need unilateral free trade for our own, individual interests.

The author teaches at the Centre for Civil Society, and can be reached at naturalorder@gmail.com