He criticises how non-governmental organisations attack "unfair trade". This is not because he supports Western protectionism, but because it is a phrase also used by groups in Western countries to stop cheap imports. "Trade experts of all political persuasions have spent decades exposing the cynical use of this phrase and decrying, but then in come the know-nothings, who persuade the unsuspecting poor countries to embrace it. When it comes to the two sets of nations, poor and rich, battling it out as to who is the worse unfair trader, do not be surprised when the poor nations find themselves at a disadvantage." After all, poor countries have lower wages, fewer environmental laws and higher tariffs. Should Western countries have to compete with this?

The inclusion of TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) into the World Trade Organization, which he says isn't trade-related, comes under fire. This led to "an astonishing capture of the WTO". Now every lobby wants to their own non-trade-related agenda to be an integral part of the WTO.

Bhagwati argues that the idea that poor countries are "forced" to liberalise is overly-simplistic, and "the reality is far more benign". He points out that traditionally the IMF and World Bank have had opposite conditionality, with the IMF being against tariff reductions and the World Bank in favour.

Moreover, poor countries, when they don't want to open up, are very good at playing games with the World Bank and IMF. These institutions "are met with excessive courtesy and protocol at the airport, stay in penthouse executive suites, meet with prime ministers and presidents, and wind up feeling that they are more important than they really are." Ultimately, Bhagwati argues, they measure their success by how much they are able to spend, and when a country says it can't do trade liberalisation for political reasons, they still hand over the cash.