Not the Only Shop In Town

With globalization such a trend of late, and the U.S. riding on its coat tails with the vehicle of free trade, it's seems apparent that the U.S. government wants to be the only shop in town (the town being the global market). Today, news agencies have reported, that South Korea's parliament is voting to approve a free trade deal with the United States, of which the South Korean people outright do not support. So what happens when a global power decides that it does no want to consider the needs of foreign people, and will at any cost force trade deals with unwilling nations? It blockades the voting chamber doors with office furniture, as the opposition is left to fight its way in, in order to stop the agreement.

This is a very disappointing light that will be cast upon U.S. representatives of South Korea. Not only is the U.S. government turning a blind eye to these events, but it fails to publicly declare that it is attempting soft imperial practices around the globe. This is what America calls a democratic process? South Korean lawmakers who oppose the free trade deal have stated that this agreement would destroy agriculture in South Korea, and in conjunction to this the U.S. Congress has fought this deal, because it would economically topple an already faulty auto making industry in America. If free trade is not the will of the people, and it is a system that has not effectively supported current economic infrastructure, then why is it constantly being rammed through?

President Bush, who wholeheartedly sponsors free trade, has committed himself to several free trade agreements, and has pushed to implement even more throughout the international scene. In order to effectively analyze Bush's economic agenda, one needs to consider his brute force tactics in initiating two conflicts in the Middle East, and along parallel lines, his all out commitment to promoting free trade one global region at a time. Note, that most of these regions fall within the global South (below the equator), made up of nations that are in fact poorer, less developed the nations unlike the U.S. and those in Europe, and do not hold any substantial leverage with institutions like the World Bank, IMF, or World Trade Organization. But, the U.S. government does. In fact it is has the most influential leverage of all, and in most cases will be the deciding factor in financial decisions of these organizations.

So, free trade therefore, really only benefits the U.S., because of its connection to global institutions committed to controlling the global monetary system, which in effect agrees to loan money to the U.S. for foreign investments in trade, which the U.S. in turn uses as leverage to politically and socially manipulate the nation with which it trades. President Bush has protected American interests via amending U.S. agriculture policy to the agreements, and subsidizing U.S. farmers simutaneously. The foreign nations only have the capability to supply whatever it is they can produce, and everyone is aware that most developing nations do not have this capacity, and at most they do have ample agriculture to get a economic head start. But, America does not want that part of their business.

One assumption could be made that U.S. companies foresaw a lack of demand domestically, and would began to scour the planet for more ways to produce more demand overseas. From a market standpoint that might work, but culturally it fails, because these businesses cannot possibly put countries like Guatemala, India even Iraq into the same mold that fits countries like Japan, China, or Saudi Arabia. Economy must be stable and have some form of structure that meets cultural and popular needs. It also must retain a mutual flow of trade. Without this the U.S. economy will fail itself, among other nations, and that is so evident in what is happening today with the markets. Too much is placed on foreign entities, too fast, and often times the concept of trade seems to represent an asymmetric business venture.

The U.S. government needs to stop its progression of free trade, and get back to the drawing board, and rethink its trade policies. They are simply destroying the global economy, in some sense creating more enemies for the global superpowers, and driving a divide between rich and poor individuals as well as nations.