When asked about the current Bush administration's track record on international trade and support for the developing world, he responded with a joke that captured the fundamental divide separating policy makers from theorists:

"A woman is screaming, 'Help, help! My husband is beating me!' I say, 'Look, hang in there. After 25 years of economic development, you'll be taken care of.' And that's how some economists really argue," he cried incredulously. In his refreshingly irreverent manner he continued, "No, I want to go and nail that bastard against the wall right away. And, then, the really interesting question is, what's the counterpart in policy?" Evidently, Bhagwati himself has no problem bridging the divides between theorists, policy makers and the general public. His incisive wit and outspoken views complement a unique ability to communicate with the non-expert without compromising his standing among the intellectual heavyweights.

In fact, it takes a while to reconcile Bhagwati's imposing public figure--Special Adviser to the UN on Globalization, External Adviser to the Director General of the WTO, acclaimed Columbia University economics professor and, currently, André Meyer Senior Fellow in International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations--with the exuberant, utterly approachable character who jiggles with mirth in person.

He referred to the original architects of GATT as "very good free-traders." Then added, "Almost as good as me!" at which point he nearly slid out of his chair giggling.

The result, however, is a formidable influence on public opinion. As Robert Law of The Financial Times described it, "One of the joys of Jagdish Bhagwati is that he has never succumbed to the all-too-common sin of holing up in an ivory tower. Instead, he has established his reputation in the area of trade by bringing his insight to bear on popular debate."

As a self-described "public nuisance," Bhagwati is a vociferous thorn in the side of US policymakers, a critic who will not be silenced on matters relating to protectionism and the obstruction of free trade.

And there is certainly plenty for him to protest right now. Since the US announced a 30 percent tariff on steel imports, the European Commission has announced its own set of retaliatory steel tariffs. Canada has also begun exploring reprisals for a 29 percent tariff announced on softwood. Meanwhile, other domestic industries (timber, agriculture and textiles) are actively seeking similar protection. The regular din of special-interest groups has suddenly escalated into a looming trade war. Is this the ringing endorsement of free trade that George Bush had in mind at Doha when he opened a new round of world trade talks?

Bhagwati's response to the situation on steel launches an animated tirade: the matter has been mishandled from more than a year ago, when accusations emerged about massive subsidization of the steel makers abroad that allowed them to dump their exports here below cost. According to Bhagwati, the administration's fatal blunder occurred when it took the matter to the US International Trade Commission (USITC), instead of to a less-biased multilateral body like the WTO. Never imagining that, after two years of falling steel imports, the USITC would rule in favor of the domestic steel industry (how could the foreign competition be accused of dumping if imports are falling?), the administration had counted on an USITC decision that would save it from having to protect the industry. Instead, as Bhagwati put it in his characteristically outspoken way, "Those wretched fellows [at the USITC] unanimously found injury!"

Bush had left himself very little maneuverability. The decision by the USITC entitles the domestic steel industry (whose votes could be key to swing constituencies) to retaliatory action by the US. "So what would you do if you were Bush? I have no doubt that Bush is a free-trader S but the minimum hope [the administration] has right now is that the European Union will take it to the WTO and they will find almost certainly that the [USITC] decision was wrong. If so, the matter will be automatically vacated in two years, and by that time the election is out of the way."

It is a remarkably sympathetic analysis, especially coming from someone who has been described as "the prime warrior for free trade," of a protectionist stance that makes absolutely no economic sense. Yet it is precisely this flexibility--that of an influential academic who can also negotiate the intricacies beyond the ivory tower -that has made Bhagwati so influential. What bothers him, however, are the "deaf ears in Washington" who do not afford economists the same respect.

"These guys have come in, like [US Trade Representative Robert] Zoellick, and many of them do not understand that the multilateral system is better than the bilateral system. A whole lot of people think that any kind of trade liberalization is good, whether it's bilateral, regional or multilateral: they see it all as reducing barriers. What they don't understand is that if you reduce barriers for only a few people, than you're increasing the handicap of the people who are outside."

A recent article in The Economist described Bhagwati as "a liberal in both the old and new senses of that word: he is for free trade, but he is for ambitious social policies too."

His idealism seems to coexist comfortably with his realism (some might even call it cynicism). He remarked at one point, "Politicians always use whatever goes on to advance their agenda and what you should ask as an economist is not whether they're smart enough or devious enough to do that--you are to ask what the agenda is."

But it could only be idealism that fires what a former student described as Bhagwati¹s "enormous energy, bordering at times on the frenetic. While also teaching and supervising students, traveling extensively and writing dozens of articles a year, Bhagwati has also authored and edited a steady stream of books."

As he recounted a confrontation with an anti-globalization protestor that he had outside the World Economic Forum this winter, Bhagwati did not lament his youthful opponent's misguided views as much as he lamented his colleagues' apathy. He said he believes it is the moral obligation of other free-traders to be out there campaigning for their principles as actively as he does.

As for the increasingly vociferous anti-globalization sentiment among youth, he attributed that to "the tyranny of the missing alternative." "The young kids see markets triumph and capitalism in one form or another surviving, while alternatives are collapsing--even Sweden is turning away from its welfare state. The Soviet bloc has collapsed. So where is your model? There is no alternative."

Meanwhile, television and the Internet have brought home the ills of the world in an intensely intimate and disturbing way. The result, he said, is "the dissonance that now exists in many of globalization's critics between empathy for the misery of a distant elsewhere, and an inadequate intellectual grasp of what can be done to ameliorate that distress."

While phrases such as "inadequate intellectual grasp" may come across as haughtily dismissive of his opponents, Bhagwati shares the idealism of these protestors and sees great hope in them. His struggle with them, he said, is really a "battle to get their ideals directed into something desirable," as opposed to rioting in the streets. But the important thing, he said, is dialogue. "There should be more of a debate,² he said. ³Bring Noam Chomsky," he challenged the legendary MIT linguist and prominent anti-free-trader, "and have him debate publicly with me, for example."

Ironically, the two may share more common ground than they would like to admit. Noam Chomsky argues that "The clique of developed nations is developed not because of free trade but because of mutual protectionism," which is precisely Bhagwati's argument against regional and bilateral agreements.

Chomsky also warned the group that gathered at Porto Alegre, Brazil, for the World Social Forum (WSF) to be "scrupulously careful not to describe itself as an anti-globalization forum S We want globalization in the interests of the world population," he clarified.

There is no doubt that sparks would indeed fly if Chomsky were to answer Bhagwati's challenge. Would it be enough to catch the attention of the policy makers in Washington? They may have "deaf ears," but perhaps they would not be able to ignore such heated debate.