By most accounts, the Seoul meeting of the Group of 20 major economies failed to meet the objective of “rebalancing” the global economy. No major agreement was reached on any core issues, beyond agreeing to put things off until 2011 while the IMF is put to work on some “indicative guidelines” for the next debate.

According to the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, “It is unclear whether G-20 members will agree on such guidelines, let alone enforce them rigorously.”

An interesting sideshow at the meetings has been watching world leaders making desperate attempts to expose other leaders’ failures to meet the apparently much desired gold standard of “free trade.” For those of you who thought the global financial crisis had put an end to this sort of “free trade” rhetoric, this might come as somewhat of a surprise.

Confronting weak economic and job growth and significant trade imbalances, the U.S. accused the Chinese government of undervaluing the yuan to bolster Chinese exports. President Barack Obama expressed dismay over China’s “intervening in the market to keep it undervalued.”

China, on the other hand, struck back. In harmony with Brazil and Germany, China accused the U.S. of printing excess money to buy bonds in a deliberate attempt to weaken its own currency and defend U.S. exports.

In response to a proposal by the U.S. that G-20 members agree to national limits for current account surpluses or deficits, a Chinese official dismissed the idea as a throwback “to the days of planned economies.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkal, whose own government recently negotiated a massive bailout for the Irish economy, similarly dismissed the idea. Wrapping herself in the cloak of free trade economics, she proclaimed it to be “neither economically justified nor politically appropriate.”

The elephant in the room to all of these discussions is the state of free trade itself. Despite using “free trade” as a bludgeon to beat opponents over the head in international negotiations, none of the major powers have been particularly devoted to free trade. Rather, they have been devoted to free trade when its suits them (such as the U.S. demanding greater access to Southern markets through the WTO) and quietly opposed to it when it does not (such as the U.S. continuing to subsidize its cotton farmers to the tune of $3 billion per year despite objections from Southern countries at the WTO).

The irony around the hypocritical use of “free trade” has become even more apparent in the wake of the latest G20 meetings. In a world of escalating “currency wars” and fears of growing retaliatory trade sanctions, the powerful countries conducting these battles continue to draw on the old familiar weapon of free trade to justify all of their actions.

All of this to deny what the sharpest political economists have always pointed out, and mainstream economists have continued to deny, that free trade versus regulated trade is a red herring in these debates. What powerful governments have in mind at the G20 negotiations is what best suits the interests of the powerful elite within their countries, whether it is free trade, regulated trade, or no trade at all.

This suggests depressing prospects all around for anyone who hoped that the G20 might concern itself with fighting poverty and global inequality. Of course, perhaps I’m too cynical about all of this. After all, the G20 members did pledge their commitment to help the world’s poor through strengthening their efforts at the WTO to promote… you guessed it: free trade.

Gavin Fridell is an associate professor and Chair of Politics at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, and the author of Fair Trade Coffee: The Prospects and Pitfalls of Market-Driven Social Justice.

Cathryn Atkinson

Cathryn Atkinson is the former News and Features Editor for rabble.ca. Her career spans more than 25 years in Canada and Britain, where she lived from 1988 to 2003. Cathryn has won five awards...