The novelist Evelyn Waugh, in his 1939 political travelogue Robbery Under Law: The Mexican Object-Lesson, lamented domestic economic policies in Mexico and elsewhere that were contributing to the “drying up of civilization” wherein “cracks appear and widen” and “the parched nations shrink away from one another.” The most effective desiccant in this regard is surely economic protectionism, and the European Union’s trade policy, with its “Fortress Europe” approach, often bears this hallmark. For this reason, it was initially heartening to hear that the European Commission’s college of commissioners, after an informal meeting on September 19, announced a commitment to a “robust competition policy” and a desire to combat “economic patriotism” (with the standard caveat that a certain amount of “social reality stock-taking” would be necessary).

That said, the following day it became clear that these seemingly classically liberal values do not extend very far. The issue du jour is, curiously enough, shoes (just as it has previously been bananas, bras, or a host of other imports). Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has proposed a 16.5% duty on certain shoe imports from China, and a 10% duty on those from Vietnam, to combat alleged dumping. By “dumping,” of course, we mean providing widely available, affordable goods.

Southern European shoe manufacturers are worried that they will be driven out of business, and have urged protectionist trade policies, but a number of businesses in northern European countries got ahead of the game and outsourced production to these very countries. Luckily for northern European nations, the European Commission can only take anti-dumping measures if they are “shown to be in the broader Community interest,” which has led to an external trade policy stalemate.

Thus, as the EU Observer reported (9/21), some countries are “putting pressure on Belgium, Germany, Ireland and the UK to vote pro-dumping duties on shoes in return for future support in trade areas dear to their own economies.” So much for encouraging competition and resisting economic patriotism.

The stakes of this debate are higher than how much Europeans pay for loafers or the how harshly the impact of foreign competition is felt by southern European manufacturers. Lately, the European Central Bank has been focused on keeping inflation in check (as opposed to encouraging growth), and imports from China and elsewhere in Asia have been a major force in achieving precisely that. In the words of David Smith in the London Times (9/17), “Protectionism, if allowed to take hold […] could cause this era of globalisation [to] begin to run into the sand, and deprive the world of [China’s] contribution to low inflation.” European Union member-states must proceed carefully, as the desiccating effects of economic protectionism could have serious domestic and international implications.