On Kamal Nath, Anti-Commerce Minister

India’s commerce (or foreign trade) minister, Kamal Nath, who has staged walk-outs during WTO meets before, is threatening to do the same again.

Note that his constituency is some land-locked poverty-stricken hole in Madhya Pradesh, and not some coastal city, where gains from foreign trade would be obvious to any true representative of the local people.

Nath says that “unless India gets clear binding commitments from the US, the European Union and other developed countries to liberalise trade in services, there will be no deal in the WTO whatsoever.” He says he will pursue this agenda "aggressively."

The crucial philosophical error in Nath’s thinking (does any Congress loyalist know how to think?) – is that “reciprocity” must guide international trade.

This doctrine means that politicians and baboos are required to “represent” national economic interests in international fora.

Yet, it is individuals who trade, not nations.

When individuals trade, reciprocity is meaningless. We do not buy from people just because they buy from us. I will not buy a Nokia phone just because the Nokia GM dines at my restaurant regularly. I will buy the best phone for my money just as he is buying the best dinner for his money. I will, indeed, show off my Motorola phone to him, pointing out why it is a superior choice – and he cannot be offended.

Kamal Nath and his band of “government trade negotiators”, however, believe that reciprocity must guide international trading relations. Thus, Nath believes he must “walk out” of the WTO mini-ministerial in order to promote the export of services.

But this will hurt all prospective importers. I cannot open my Harley-Davidson showroom because of Nath – and my prospective customers will suffer too. Ditto with Californian wines or French cheeses. Or the “Beers Of The World” store my friend is planning to set up in New Delhi?

And who will gain: Cuo Boni?

Obviously, these are the “lobbies” that are funding Nath’s petulant walk-outs. These include the IMFL (Old Monkey) mafia. And all the other peddlers of swadeshi crap.

Says Nath: “There cannot be any agreement in industrial or agricultural products which creates or demands any sort of liberalisation in sensitive sectors such as automobiles, textiles or chemicals.”

How are automobiles a “sensitive” sector? Are we to “protect” Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Ford, Mitsubishi, Skoda, General Motors, Daimler-Benz, Audi and BMW, who are all in India? Or is this a ploy to protect the Tata Indica?

How are textiles and chemicals “sensitive”?

Thus, Nath (and his government) are not representing “national interests”. They are representing particular local manufacturing interests, who exploit the Indian consumer and share their increased profits with elite political prostitutes.

In truth, just as consumption is the goal of production, imports are the goal of exports. You make money when “your ship comes in.”

The East India Company sent its tall ships to our waters laden with gold – so as to import spices, and thereby rake in fat profits in their local London markets.

Our political prostitutes always use public money for “export promotion” – in a nation that bars imports.

This makes no sense.

(Does anything they do make sense?)

I suggest that a vocal group of importers be formed, to voice their own grievances with the tariff regime.

They might benefit from my old article: “Forget the WTO: Focus on Trade.” The subtitle reads: “Why India Should Open Up To Foreign Trade Unilaterally.”

This is not only the pathway to prosperity; it is also the only pathway to peace and good relations with all the nations of the world.

Stopping trade makes wars easy. They say “when goods do not cross borders, armies will.”

Let us then resolve to completely abolish customs duties and establish this great sub-continent as the largest duty-free trading area in the world.

That is the peaceful and prosperous India of my dreams.