Thailand Questions “Free Trade”: Is Globalization Truly Fair for Everyone?
Why is “free trade” so often treated as revealed truth, a self-evident good beyond questioning? The news out of Thailand, reported by the Bangkok Post, throws a wrench into that simplistic narrative, highlighting a rarely acknowledged reality: globalization isn’t a rising tide that lifts all boats; it’s a reshuffling of wealth, power, and risk. Deputy Finance Minister Paopoom Rojanasakul’s resistance to slashing tariffs on all US goods isn’t blind protectionism. It’s a rational calculation of costs, benefits, and, critically, distribution of those costs and benefits.
“The winner in negotiations is not the one who gets the lowest tariff, but the one who can maintain the most balanced outcome,” Rojanasakul states.
This isn’t merely about tariffs; it’s about the architecture of global power. The US, brandishing its economic influence, demands market access, while smaller nations like Thailand navigate the precarious terrain between export opportunities and the potential annihilation of their domestic industries. These “free trade agreements” often resemble geopolitical instruments, tilting the playing field in favor of those already holding the high ground. We obsess over consumer benefits, conveniently overlooking the displaced workers, struggling farmers, and hollowed-out communities that become the unspoken casualties.
The decline of American manufacturing wasn’t simply a random act of creative destruction. It was a deliberate policy choice, a trade-off between cheaper consumer goods and the livelihoods of millions. It was also predicated on the belief — often unstated — that displaced workers could simply retrain and move into the “new economy.” But the new economy didn’t materialize equally across the country, leaving swaths of the nation behind. The aggregate economic gains papered over a deeply unequal distribution, creating winners and devastating losers.
The backdrop to all of this is the precariousness of global supply chains. For decades, the US championed a rules-based international order, greasing the wheels for the unfettered flow of capital and goods. Now, we’re witnessing a global scramble for self-reliance, a growing recognition that interdependence, while efficient, can also be profoundly vulnerable. COVID-19 brutally exposed our dependence on foreign producers for essential items, from pharmaceuticals to semiconductors. This newfound awareness is rewriting policy and reshaping international negotiations.
The historical context is critical. The late 20th-century wave of globalization, driven by institutions like the WTO, was built on the Washington Consensus — a free-market orthodoxy that prioritized deregulation, privatization, and liberalization. Yet, as Ha-Joon Chang, the Cambridge economist, persuasively argues, this one-size-fits-all model ignores the specific developmental needs and historical trajectories of individual nations. Chang reminds us that even historically protectionist policies played a crucial role in the early development of countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. His perspective adds crucial nuance to the decisions made by Thailand, India and other nations of the global South.
So, Thailand’s pushback against full market liberalization presents us with a fundamental challenge: What does a truly equitable global trade system look like? A system where benefits are broadly shared, where local concerns are valued, and where nations retain the agency to safeguard their strategic interests? Perhaps the relentless pursuit of efficiency needs to be tempered by the understanding that economic policy isn’t just about maximizing profits; it’s about shaping societies. The real question isn’t simply whether to slash tariffs, but whether we’re willing to confront the uncomfortable truth that “free trade” isn’t always free for everyone. Are we willing to ensure that the benefits and cost of international trade are distributed in an equitable way?
