Riding in to work on the Disneyland bus this morning I noticed the plethora of satellite dishes on the rooftops of HK, all pointing the sky eager for whatever may be in the air. My first thought was how ugly they were. Then I realised in fact they are a true symbol of the times; a sign of technology, democracy (in the form of free speech) and progress. It got me thinking...

The collapse of the WTO talks in Mexico is being trumpted as a triumph of the developing world and China in particular. For example the (unlinkable) South China Morning Post headline is China has success at failed WTO talks.

The reality is this was Pyrrhic victory. Bully for these developed countries for finally recognising they have more clout if they fight together as a common bloc. However there is little point if the end result is simply no agreement with nothing gained. As much as the "anti globalisation" brigade (wearing their Levi's and Nikes) go on about the WTO being the oppressor of the poor and such claptrap, the reality is free trade is the single most effective way to enrichen broader populations. Don't believe me? Germany and Japan since WW2, Asia since the late 50s and China since the early 80s are just a few examples.

If a developing nation is serious about improving the lives of its poor (who tend to be rural workers and farmers) then reducing the massive subsidies the rich world (US, EU and Japan) subsidise their farmers is a good point to work on. Politically these countries will require a quid pro quo, in this case the "Singapore issues". The rich countries can afford to be nonchalant on trade. They benefit from free trade and a 5% increase in incomes is nice but not earth shattering. However for a developing nation that same increase can be the start of a cycle of great wealth and a lift out of poverty for much of the population. Most of these nations are efficient and cheap producers of primary goods. Freer trade benefits them disprortionately.

The rich world is not above blame either. The US, for example, has increased tariffs on steel and farm good in the past 2 years under a "free trade" President. They spend US$4 billion to support a US$3 billion cotton industry. Europe and Japan are even worse. Reducing trade barriers in agriculture results in cheaper food and improves a government's budget position. In rich nations though farmers are politically well organised and many voters have a nostalgic feeling it is important to keep the man on the land. This is absurd; if starting today the EU said they will suddenly subsidise all computer makers in Europe there would be an outcry. But cuts in support have a small benefit for the whole population but a large cost for a small part of the population. It takes unusual political courage to take this on.

Deep down I think many of the Governments invovled in the trade talks know this too. The pendulum swings between doing what is right in the long term and pandering to short term domestic interests. It is swinging the wrong way at the moment but there is too much evidence that free trade works for this to last long. If it comes about via bilateral and regional trade agreements instead of via the WTO that is not ideal, but the momentum is inevitable. Starting a new political grouping only to shoot itself in the foot on its first outing is not a smart tactic.

Those satellite dishes are a sign of the future. The world is becoming more connected and interlocked (this is what globalisation is) and avoiding this benefits no one. The reality is people want free trade, even if they do not call it that. Everone likes having access to Coca-cola, Swiss cheese, Aussie meat or Japanese gadgets at their nearest shop. That's globalisation.