Trade is good, people.

Stephen Harper defends Canada’s trade deal with Colombia.

I applaud this. Canada’s free trade deal with Colombia is a good thing. Trade, specialization, and commerce are important for economic growth. Trade agreements provide stable rules so that businesses can work in foreign countries. Trade agreements also allow people from different countries to buy and selling things freely. Barriers to trade, such as tariffs and import quotas only serve to benefit producers that cannot compete with international competition, at the expense of the economic prosperity of people as a whole. They persist only because these interests usually have powerful lobby groups that exert greater political pressure than pro-trade consumer groups.

One of the worst arguments against free trade with Colombia that i’ve seen seeks to link trade to the human rights situation in that country. The story goes that Canada should not trade with a country that has such a high level of internal violence and government corruption. Canada should, in effect, sanction the Colombian government by maintaining protectionist policies. This argument is greatly flawed for several reasons.

First, in the case of Colombia, much of the violence against the population is perpetrated by non-state actors: criminal groups that exist outside of the state with their own armies, resources, and political agendas. The Colombian state is simply too weak to hold these organizations to account. The reasons are complex, but suffice to say that this has been the case for most of Colombian history. There are large swaths of territory where official government capacity is either non-existent or very limited. To punish the country because of the actions of illegal armed groups is clearly pointless and unjust.

Second, countries and governments do not trade; people trade; businesses trade. Even if there were a strong case against the official government of Colombia, it does not follow that we should seek to restrict trade between Colombian people and businesses, and Canadian people and businesses through protectionist tariffs. It maybe a case for cutting foreign aid, or for diplomatic sanctions, but in my mind, nothing is logically served by restricting trade and commerce between the peoples of each country. Only people and businesses suffer.

Third, the case against Colombia has always been thinly veiled protectionism. While there are some poorly informed “do gooders” (anti-globalization types who just don’t get basic economics), the main sponsors of the anti-trade movement are industries and trade unions that benefit from protectionism. As Canada looks to expand bilateral trading relationships with other countries, it is important to keep in mind these realities. The groups that oppose trade are generally self-interested organizations that benefit from protectionism. As most would agree, the unfettered influence of special interest groups in the policy process rarely has positive social outcomes for countries as a whole. This is particularly true with international trade. Canada, as a country, benefits from from economic exchange with the rest of the world. Only those that would desire insulation from foreign competition will say otherwise.