Sunday, October 21, 2007
The New York Times demagogues 9/11
Even when I agree with the editors of the New York Times I deplore their reasoning. In an editorial on the poor progress of the "Doha round" of trade negotiations, they and I agree, for example, that rich countries (principally the United States, Europe and Japan) need to kill off domestic agricultural subsidies because of the devestating impact they have on literally billions of poor people around the world (not to mention their many other deleterious effects). But then I read this:
There were good reasons to dedicate this round of trade talks to promoting development, including the self-interest of the rich. In 1999, protesters stormed a trade meeting in Seattle, vowing to stop the march of globalization. And the terrorist attacks in 2001 were a potent reminder that there is no possibility of insulating this country from the rest of the world. If the big countries fail to deliver a package that provides real benefits to the poorest nations, the so-called development round will be exposed as a mere tactical ploy.
May I respectfully suggest that this is tomfoolery on stilts. There are many roots of Islamist rage, but too little trade and engagement with the West is hardly one of them. Quite to the contrary, there is every reason to believe that increasing the wealth of the world's Muslim poor -- and trade is the main way that will happen no matter how you slice it -- will increase the power of the Islamists. That is, in fact, one of the strategic conundrums that makes it so difficult to contain Islamic radicalism.
And besides, can you imagine the rage from the left -- led by the editors of the New York Times -- if the Bush administration invoked September 11 as a reason to do away with a social program?
Do these guys have even a shred of self-awareness?
5 Comments:
By 
Angevin13, at
Sun Oct 21, 10:10:00 AM:
Sounds like what we need to fight terrorism is John Edwards' new "Marshall Corps"...
By 
, at
Sun Oct 21, 03:06:00 PM:
We floated a trial balloon that we were willing to cut our Ag Subsidies ceiling by 50%, but all we heard were "crickets chirping."
The Euros weren't the slightest bit interested in lowering there's, and Brazil and India had/have no interest, whatsoever, in lowering "Their" Tariffs on manufactured goods.
BTW, Ag crop subsidies fell from over $22 B to around $11 B this year.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Oct 21, 06:04:00 PM:
I'm still waiting for the "poverty causes terrorism" crowd to explain why Haiti isn't a nation of international terrorists.
I think I'll be waiting a long time for that explanation...
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Oct 22, 10:13:00 AM:
I have been endlessly baffled by people on the internet who are terribly concerned that we import so much oil, then promptly turn around and complain that we grow too much of our own food.
By , at
Tue Oct 23, 12:36:00 AM:
And the liberals shout NO BLOOD FOR OIL while opposing drilling in the ANWR. Frankly those eco-wackos should be fed to the killer whales,and skuas
