One of the most obvious ethical violations in world trade is that the United States and Europe—the rich powers—subsidize their farmers and therefore can undercut developing-country producers on the world market. If the U.S. subsidizes 25,000 cotton producers at a cost of $3 billion a year, that means that even if their production cost is 75 cents a pound, they can sell cotton for 18 cents a pound and undercut the cotton growers in Mali or Benin or somewhere, although they produce cotton for much less than American growers. It is really unconscionable for America, which holds itself up as a champion of free trade, to be subsidizing these products.

I also think the way the WTO rules require you to focus on the product rather than the process of production is a mistake, and one that has ethical consequences. It does not address whether we should have restrictions on importing a product because, for example, it contributes to the extinction of sea turtles or is produced with an element of cruelty to animals. We might ban such practices within our own borders, but still buy foreign products that use them.

The fact that we have refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol will give U.S. industries an unfair pricing advantage, because they will not have to factor the same emission controls into their production costs as the competitors in the Kyoto signatories will. In the future, the rest of the world will bear the environmental costs, which might include climate changes, more erratic rainfall in sub-Saharan Africa or rising sea levels flooding low-lying farm regions such as the Bangladeshi delta. We are a wealthy nation getting a free ride on the backs of poorer countries.

People familiar with your ethical stance have been shocked to learn that you believe globalization has been beneficial to low-wage workers in developing countries.

Some westerners take the view that if people in developing countries are not paid as much as people here then they are being exploited. But obviously it may be a better wage for them than they would get if we were not buying the product. I would rather ask if the job will make the workers better off than they would have been if this industry did not exist in their country. What really counts is their buying power.

There is, however, the question of how little it costs the company to make the product. You might define exploitation this way: Are people suffering from the company cutting costs? Just as the U.S. businesses that pollute have an unfair advantage, it is unfair trade when China is able to produce a gadget cheaply because the manufacturer does not have to worry about safe disposal of the toxic wastes that are a byproduct, and instead pours the wastes into a river, giving local residents cancer. That is a case of unethical trade because the people, who probably do not have the power to sue the corporation, are paying the hidden cost of producing the gadget.

The last thing the WTO is going to do is police corporate accountability, especially if it drives prices up.