Virtually last among the world's major industrial nations-but by no means least-the United States has now agreed to offer some form of tariff preferences to imports from developing countries. President Nixon's Latin American policy address last October, followed by his statement on November 10, signaled what amounts to a major shift in U.S. policy by calling for a broad system of generalized preferences, with the proviso that if this cannot be achieved, the United States may extend regional preferences to Latin America alone.
Virtually last among the world's major industrial nations-but by no means least-the United States has now agreed to offer some form of tariff preferences to imports from developing countries. President Nixon's Latin American policy address last October, followed by his statement on November 10, signaled what amounts to a major shift in U.S. policy by calling for a broad system of generalized preferences, with the proviso that if this cannot be achieved, the United States may extend regional preferences to Latin America alone.
The President's statements represent a significant departure from earlier U.S. views. When the less developed countries (LDCs) raised this issue as their major demand at the first U.N. Conference on Trade and Development in 1964, the United States-unlike the majority of the world's other rich nations-was resolutely opposed. Indeed, George Ball, then Undersecretary of State and Chief U.S. Delegate to the Conference, left little doubt about the intention of the United States to resist what he considered a policy shift unrelated to real economic development needs and undesirable from almost every other economic, political and commercial policy standpoint.
In subsequent years, U.S. opposition notwithstanding, the pressure for preferences as a major means by which the rich nations would contribute to economic development in Latin America, Africa and Asia grew more insistent. It remained the single most important question debated at the second U.N. Conference at New Delhi and was pressed by Latin American countries in regional councils and in meetings with U.S. officials.
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Economic journalist Martin Wolf adds sharp insights to the trade-liberalization debate and scores a major victory against critics of globalization.
Antiglobalization activists are convinced that economic integration has been widening the gap between rich and poor. The best evidence, however, proves them wrong. Thanks to higher growth driven by greater openness to trade and investment, global inequality has narrowed and global poverty has been reduced.
Bringing the newly market-oriented countries of Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe into the global economy would harness the productive capacity of some three billion people. But increased resistance to free trade has cut the supply of political tolerance for another global trade round anytime soon. An expansion of regional trading areas such as the European Union and NAFTA promises the greatest progress, but international e»orts must keep regional blocs from becoming protectionist and ensure they are compatible with the global trade regime.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.