If Senegalese workers manage to win higher wages, the companies will sack the lot of them and bring in workers from Pakistan, the Philippines or whatever country is on top of the ‘cheap labour provider of the week’ list.

Sooner or later there won’t be enough fish to make fishing profitable, the companies will sack the workers, dump the environmental problem on the government, invest the fishing profits elsewhere, sponsor a charity programme to feed the Senegalese on the condition that their logo is prominently displayed and all get knighthoods or whatever their government gives to such hard-working citizens.

Economically “free trade” between developed and under developed countries is good for the developed economy and bad (in the medium to long term) for the developing economy. This is because there is no new economic activity that can develop in the developing economy that cannot be crushed by the developed economy. Developing economies need protection to develop.

Politically the sorts of trade arrangements that see these sorts of disparities are exactly what the imperialists are pushing on the world, and in the most delightfully Orwellian manner, calling “Free Trade”. So to call for “Free Trade” in the current world climate is to call for FTAs and WTO sanctioned agreements that perpetuate injustice. Because that is what is good for the powerful entities that get to draft the agreements.

Which is why the Green Party uses the term “Fair Trade”. Trade can be very good for every body. And trade that is good for every body should be encouraged.

Trade can choke the development out of a developing economy. That sort of trade should be discouraged.

peace
W

European trawlers fishing in Senegalese waters can offload fish directly in Europe. But I understand if the Senegalese were to fish it then export to Europe they would be hit with import tariffs. This is ridiculous.

Yes, you may be correct that restrictions would help as a temporary measure. But ultimately true free trade is not causing this problem, but unbalanced trade.

subsidies for meat and dairy products do not push up the price of meat and dairy products to consumers, if anything they push it down. Therefore they cannot push up the price of fish unless the fish is being used for stock feed.

The price of fish is higher in Europe because people in Europe have more money with which to bid up the price of fish, and because meat and dairy products are more expensive due to higher wage rates, which in turn are due to the higher cost of living.

The problem is caused by Europeans being richer than Senegalese. In the long term this disparity may be able to be reduced by allowing Senegal to export other products to Eurpoe more freely, but in the short term it can only be prevented through trade restrictions designed to protect Senegalese access to Senegalese fish.

Europe’s agricultural subsidies drive up food prices in Europe - fish prices as well, because it is another source of protein and you can charge more for it while still being able to compete with expensive agricultural produce. This makes fish worth more in Europe than in Africa.

So you will end up with companies fishing in Africa and selling in Europe to gain a profit - and this profit is because the trade is NOT truly free or fair.

True free trade would involve Europe ditching agricultural subsidies, import tariffs and all such policies. Food prices in Europe would plummet. The subsidy-driven incentive to eat fish from Senegal would disappear overnight. Agricultural produce from efficient countries such as New Zealand would increase in value. European farms would use fewer inputs such as fertiliser and become more environmentally friendly simply in order to survive. Trees would be planted on marginal land that is unable to be farmed without subsidies.

The problem is not with the lack of free trade, but with the fact that trade with Europe is not in fact free nor fair. We need to pursue trade policies that are both free and fair, not one-sided as often occurs at present.