Nothing of what the author says gives any reason in favour of protectionism, nor says what such protectionist measures should be, nor how the author would know, nor how the fair price in a given transaction would be determined as distinct from the market price, nor how the author would know.

"A UN study in 2007 found for Vanuatu that despite reductions in its tariff lines, lower prices as a result of trade liberalisation didn't eventuate."

How would the study know whether prices being lower or higher after reductions in tariffs were because of or despite the tariffs? How would any such conclusion avoid the fallacy of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'? For example, if the effect of the tariff were to reduce prices which nevertheless rose because of some other factor - such as reduced supply, or increased demand, or a change in the demand for money - how would the UN study know?

None of the protectionists ever explain
a) if free trade makes society poorer, why not abolish free trade altogether?
b) but if not, why don't the arguments for free trade that the author must concede, apply to the free trade that the author opposes? and
c) how the decision could by anything but arbitrary?

Peter, go back and read the article from the Pacific's point of view, not your colonialists blinkered viewpoint.

David