Giving the Lie to Free trade

Without condoning Australia’s dubious practices in international trade, the country doesn’t deserve to take to whole rap for what is fairly common practice.
Modern ‘Free Trade’ is a game the Americas created and wrote the rules for. The land downunder simply plays them as well as the rest. The fact is, there is a basic dichotomy in the US version of ‘Free trade’.
Take this definition from of Free Trade (From Wikipedia):
It is a concept in economics and government that refers to:

1. international trade of goods without tariffs (taxes on imports) or other trade barriers (e.g., quotas on imports)


2. international trade in services without tariffs or other trade barriers


3. the free movement of labor between countries


4. the free movement of capital between countries


5. the absence of trade-distorting policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations or laws) that give domestic firms, households or factors of production an advantage over foreign ones.


6. government protection of property rights to enforce the above conditions

With regard to free trade, President Bush acknowledged the need for fair trade. “Keeping America competitive requires us to open more markets for all that Americans make and grow. One out of every five factory jobs in America is related to global trade, and we want people everywhere to buy American. With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker.”

Bush’s argument was largely targeting a domestic audience, which no doubt reflects the sanitized language, e.g.: ‘fair trade’.  
The rhetoric on ‘buy American’ is made suspect by the continuing shift of manufacturing to ‘low income’ economies such as china and India. That move is reflected in the growing debt owed by the US to those countries.
Leaving the local implications aside, it also introduces a basic dichotomy into the free trade debate. Bush’s call for a level playing field is hardly possible, or acceptable, to trading partners given; “With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker.”
It is highly unlikely that any trading partner will allow the US to bully them into an untenable trading position. Whatever trade agreements are in place, the even more sacred cow of, competition will always prevail. It is called survival.
The reality of US sponsored ‘free trade’ is that US industry lobbyists continue to throw tantrums and distort the market to their own need and to hell with level playing fields.
The US is quick to apply ‘sanctions’, protection by a different name, at will. Witness the Canadian softwood lumber dispute. Even when NAFTA and WTO find against the American position the industry screams and cries, and the protection remains.
What is really wanted by Bush’s puppet masters is ‘US Trade Agreements’, which bear no relationship to free or fair for trading partners.
While that position holds other countries might enter agreements but in the end will do all in their power to gain market share in their sectors of interest. That is exactly what Australia was doing in the Oil for Food fiasco, wrong as it was. The culture of corruption which is being highlighted in that scandal is one spawned by the US economic bully tactics.