The EU turns further inward

There are inherent tensions in the phrase “liberal democracy.” The liberal part implies the protection of individual rights. The democracy part implies that those areas of policy requiring collective decision making will reflect majoritarian preferences. The tension is over what spheres of social, political, and economuc life should be protected against democratic rule — or, to turn it around, what constraints should be placed on individual freedoms for the good of the whole. I bring this up because the European Union’s trade commissioner is considering a wholesale rejection of the liberal part of this equation. According to the Financial Times:

Governments would be allowed to ban imports from countries that did not share their national values and standards under proposals for radical changes to global trade rules being studied by Pascal Lamy, Europe’s trade commissioner…. The paper says legalising curbs on imports that do not meet individual societies’ “collective preferences” would promote global economic integration by reducing international tensions…. [T]he paper says the WTO rules give too much weight to science and too little to local social and political sensitivities. The paper does not detail what kinds of imports the European Union might want to restrict. However, it says divergent national regulations and public attitudes worldwide threaten to create growing trade frictions over environmental policy and in sectors such as agriculture, services, software and pharmaceuticals. The paper insists it is not seeking a pretext to erect new import barriers. However, it acknowledges that economic liberals and developing countries – long hostile to efforts to link trade and social standards – might attack the idea as protectionist and Eurocentric. (emphasis added)

The highlighted section reflects just how Eurocentric this report would be. If the EU chose to implement this policy, it probably would promote greater European integration (via trade diversion). It would also probably reduce European tensions over trade. However, it would also succeed in reducing global economic integration — as well as pissing off just every other country in the world. How the papers’ authors believe that this step would actually boost integration and reduce tensions outside of Europe is beyond me. Unless they think that Europe is the world. UPDATE: Rich Kleinman offers a thoughtful rejoinder:

[Y]ou don’t pay enough attention to the fact that the reasons the tariffs could be imposed are actually barriers to democracy. The extreme example that I am thinking of here is slavery. If another nation was selling goods to Europe that were produced by slaves how would limiting that trade be a problem.

Rich makes a valid point, and in the abstract I agree that on trade matters, circumstances exist in which broad-based democratic values should trump individual liberties. However, three things frost me about this story:

1) When one considers recent EU trade history — it’s hard not to believe that this policy would not do much more harm than good — both to the European and global economy; 2) The stated policy would have collective decision-making always trumping individual choice; 3) The paper’s reported argument that the EU decision to jack up tariffs willy-nilly will somehow promote integration and reduce conflict is so completely wrong-headed that I’m amazed that it’s being advanced.