McArthur then says:
This is probably obvious to most readers of this blog, but just for the record, let me note that exports of subsidized U.S. rice (and corn) are neither "free trade" nor the "neoliberal economic model." What Clinton and McArthur should be arguing, in my view, is that by subsidizing rice, the U.S. failed to practice free trade/neoliberal economic policies, and this failure was very harmful to Haitian rice producers. While regional agreements like NAFTA can't do much about agriculture subsidies, the WTO tries to rein them in.
As to how non-subsidized U.S. rice would compare to Haitian rice in terms of price, I would guess that the price of the U.S. rice would be higher, but I'm not really sure. If it were the case that even non-subsidized U.S. rice was hurting Haitian rice producers, I'll just mention that WTO rules allow developing countries to maintain a good deal of protection (and for that matter, they provide developed countries plenty of flexibility for protection, too).
Oh, and one more thing. The article describes Clinton as saying the following: "the theory behind that global trend was that wealthy countries could provide poorer countries with cheaper food than their farmers could grow. That would lead poor countries to skip directly to industrialization." I've read a decent amount on development over the years (though certainly not everything, of course), and I've never heard that theory. To me, that seems like a horrible mangling of something that an economist might have actually said.