The US and the EU (rich) have been concerned to limit their import of textiles from China (poor but getting richer). Even so, Peter Mandelson, the EU's Trade Commissioner, has moved to berate the West for its defensive approach to imports from Asia.

The rich countries have used 'adjustment' clauses to limit imports while their domestic industries have tried to adapt. Despite years of preparation, the lifting of barriers at the beginning of the year has proved too much. It may well prove too much, suggests Graham Searjeant, for the less efficient but protected producers of South Asia, North Africa, and Latin America, who were given privileged but limited access to Western markets, but now face competition from China and others.

One approach is to try to preserve the status quo and to extend its artificiality. To this end we would keep out the new (poor) exporters in order to benefit the old (even poorer) ones. We would regulate even more markets, allowing in quantities we deemed right from countries we deemed deserving, trying to pour aspic over international trade so it would be preserved in a shape we felt comfortable with. This seems to attract NGOs such as Christian Aid, denounced this week by the Financial Times for "irresponsibility."

The other approach is to rate free trade the fairest, most effective road out of poverty. It is to end the subsidies and the barriers, to bring down our tariffs and financial support for domestic industries, including textiles and most importantly, agriculture. It is to allow poor countries to become richer by selling us their produce, recognizing that there will be short term losers along the way, and trying to help them adapt to the changes.

In this approach, people buy things they want to because the price and quality are right, not because some committee has allocated quotas. Poorer countries can expand, develop and become richer, instead of being locked into an approved status quo of permanent dependence. It may be bumpier, but it is more adaptable and open-ended. As the Globalisation Institute points out, this is fairer than any artificial definition of fairness. Furthermore, it leads to prosperity.