Jagdish Bahgwati, quem é Jagdish Bahgwati?
Não, não, não um novo terrorista. É um bom economista. E aí vai um trecho de uma entrevista com ele, falando sobre o livre comércio e a agenda de direitos humanos mundo afora.
PAR: While most calls to curtail trading privileges are usually made by those with protectionist leanings who want to shelter domestic industries, the movement to end child labor seems a little more genuine. Can a compromise ever be reached between free traders and human rights groups? If so, what should it look like?
Bhagwati: I would say that, not just the reduction of child labor, but many social agendas are "genuine". But you generally devalue them by mixing them up with trade sanctions against the products made with child labor, for your allies in that game are always protectionists who are worried about the competition from their foreign rivals who use children at work. Besides, trade sanctions are hardly an effective way to truly address the problem. Then again, we have a right to ask: why are trade sanctions being used against child labor (a problem in the developing countries) and not against developed countries that exploit migrant labor, use sweatshops etc. as in the US itself? If we are to use trade sanctions to advance human rights and/or social agendas, I suggest that we use them symmetrically against all: sanctions, like doctors, should be sans borders! We need general principles here, not ad hoc measures that are directed at others. Human rights must necessarily be symmetric and universal, without playing favorites on behalf of the rich and powerful countries. Stones must be thrown at our glass houses, not just at other countries’: you devalue your moral cause if you throw stones at others’ glass houses while building a wall around your own, wittingly or unwittingly.
Não, não, não um novo terrorista. É um bom economista. E aí vai um trecho de uma entrevista com ele, falando sobre o livre comércio e a agenda de direitos humanos mundo afora.
PAR: While most calls to curtail trading privileges are usually made by those with protectionist leanings who want to shelter domestic industries, the movement to end child labor seems a little more genuine. Can a compromise ever be reached between free traders and human rights groups? If so, what should it look like?
Bhagwati: I would say that, not just the reduction of child labor, but many social agendas are "genuine". But you generally devalue them by mixing them up with trade sanctions against the products made with child labor, for your allies in that game are always protectionists who are worried about the competition from their foreign rivals who use children at work. Besides, trade sanctions are hardly an effective way to truly address the problem. Then again, we have a right to ask: why are trade sanctions being used against child labor (a problem in the developing countries) and not against developed countries that exploit migrant labor, use sweatshops etc. as in the US itself? If we are to use trade sanctions to advance human rights and/or social agendas, I suggest that we use them symmetrically against all: sanctions, like doctors, should be sans borders! We need general principles here, not ad hoc measures that are directed at others. Human rights must necessarily be symmetric and universal, without playing favorites on behalf of the rich and powerful countries. Stones must be thrown at our glass houses, not just at other countries’: you devalue your moral cause if you throw stones at others’ glass houses while building a wall around your own, wittingly or unwittingly.
<< Home