Posted on 07/27/2004 7:35:38 AM PDT by take
WTO Chief: 'Lot of Work' Needed for Deal
GENEVA (Reuters) - World Trade Organization (WTO) chief Supachai Panitchpakdi said on Tuesday "a lot of work" was needed if rich and poorer countries were to reach a key deal this week on shaping a new global trade.
Supachai's downbeat comments came as ministers from around 35 countries gathered to reinforce their diplomats in talks aimed at getting the WTO's struggling three-year-old Doha Round of free trade negotiations back on track.
"We are expecting countries to adopt a flexible stance ... but we still have a lot of work to do in agriculture and industrial goods," Supachai told reporters, citing the two main areas dividing developed and developing countries.
But senior officials from India and Argentina, major players in the talks, made clear that North-South positions were far apart on the farm trade issue and that the only way out was a much less ambitious accord than one now on the table.
The current draft, to be endorsed by all 147 WTO nations by Friday, sets out the framework for a final deal that would move to end the system of farm subsidies and credits operated by the European Union and the United States.
Developing countries argue those programs allow both trade powers to protect their own high-cost farmers from imports while helping them dump their subsidized produce abroad and destroy the livelihood of struggling farmers in the South.
The poorer nations say the draft as it stands would still allow the 25-nation EU to shelter over half its farm products from real support reform by accepting that they are "sensitive" -- or key to keeping the Union's farmers in business.
SERIOUSLY FLAWED
India's Commerce and Industry minister Kamal Nath told reporters at the WTO the document was "seriously flawed." EU subsidies were illegal under WTO rules so developing countries "should not have to pay a price for these distortions to be cut."
Argentina's WTO envoy Alfredo Vicente Chiaradia said negotiators were not making headway on agriculture and suggested the way out was a more general framework -- except for export subsidies.
The EU offer to dismantle these would have to remain in any agreement for the talks to be successful this week. "The export subsidy issue is out of the bottle. It can't be taken back," he declared. But diplomats say EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, under heavy fire from France for ceding too much on subsidies already, is unlikely to be able to accept any weakening of the Union's stance in the talks. Lamy was arriving in Geneva on Tuesday, where he will be joined by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and ministers from some 30 other WTO countries.
The current blueprint, drafted by Supachai and the chairman of the WTO's executive General Council, Japanese ambassador Shotaro Oshima, is expected to undergo some radical changes when a new version appears on Wednesday.
But given the strength of the criticism, which also targets proposals on handling tariff reductions on industrial goods, this might not be enough to enable agreement by the weekend, diplomats say.
Chinese textile officials have called on the World Trade Organization to eliminate global textile quotas as scheduled.
Chinese state-run media say the officials made the comment Tuesday.
The World Trade Organization had stipulated that the quotas be eliminated by January 2005. But dozens of countries have asked that the quotas continue until December 2007, fearing an avalanche of Chinese imports
Yet, many here on FR do not see the WTO for what it is socialism on a global scale. The same FReepers are rightly enraged with Hill Clinton says we are going to take from you for the common good, yet that is the goal of the WTO. First rate countries like US and UK will be forced to give up some of their standard of living so the "poorer" countries can supposedly rise up and then in true socialist style all will be equally poor, except of course the global leaders and untouchable rich.
"The current draft, to be endorsed by all 147 WTO nations by Friday, sets out the framework for a final deal that would move to end the system of farm subsidies and credits operated by the European Union and the United States."
Better NAFTA dispute settlement sought
Washington — Canada is trying to muster support from its partners in the North American free-trade agreement to strengthen what it says is an increasingly toothless dispute settlement regime.
Trade Minister Jim Peterson said yesterday that recent actions by the United States in the softwood lumber case have sparked “concerns” about the legitimacy of trade panel rulings.
“It's in the interests of all of us that we have a dispute settlement mechanism that works,” Mr. Peterson said in an interview. “That was the original intent of putting it into the NAFTA — to bring finality to disputes.”
Mr. Peterson is slated to meet his NAFTA counterparts — U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and Mexican Economy Minister Fernando Canales Clariond — in San Antonio, Tex., tomorrow and Friday. Mr. Peterson, who will also meet Mr. Zoellick privately, said Ottawa is distressed that the U.S. Commerce Department is refusing to refund millions of dollars in duties paid by Vancouver-based West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd. even after clearing the company of dumping following a NAFTA panel review.
Canada is within months of what could be a final legal victory in the American case against all other Canadian lumber companies, when the United States exhausts its appeals.
Mr. Peterson conceded that winning the case may require NAFTA improvements and the “political will” of the Bush administration.
But in a recent letter to Mr. Zoellick and U.S. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, Mr. Peterson said the Commerce Department's action “strikes a blow to the credibility and legitimacy of NAFTA dispute resolution proceedings.”
So far, neither Mr. Evans nor Mr. Zoellick has responded to the letter, Mr. Peterson acknowledged.
And getting the United States to agree to a tougher dispute settlement regime could be a tough sell.
The U.S. lumber industry has been pressuring the Bush administration not to return any of the $2-billion (U.S.) in duties collected from Canadian lumber companies since 2002 — even if it exhausts all appeals in the case.
Indeed, top Commerce Department officials have told a group of U.S. congressmen sympathetic to the U.S. lumber industry that the United States is “under no legal obligation” to return the duties.
The Washington-based U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports has also warned it may challenge the constitutionality of panel rulings. Previous legal challenges have failed.
In his letter to Mr. Evans, Mr. Peterson suggested that a powerful dispute settlement mechanism is the heart of NAFTA.
“Were Canada and Mexico to be afforded lesser protections than are available through judicial review in U.S. courts, the binding bi-national panel review that made the free-trade agreement and NAFTA possible would be called into question,” Mr. Peterson warned.
Only in an alternate universe can negotiations to remove government subsidies be called the promotion of socialism.
I posted the quote re: farm subsidies for farmfriend because that is obviously something she is interested in.
RE: UN, WTO, and supranational agencies their goal is to see a world is which all countries are equal by taking wealth from richer countries.
UNITED STATES AS COMPLAINING PARTY -- of the total of 71 complaints (67) and compliance proceedings (4) the United States has filed so far, 47 (including 1 that is partially concluded) have been concluded; 2 were merged with other complaints; 6 are in the litigation stage (for one complaint, consultations continue on one of the products at issue); and 17 are either in the pre-litigation consultation stage or currently inactive, as follows:
22-resolved to U.S. satisfaction without litigation: (1) Korea-shelf-life restrictions; (2) EU-grain imports; (3) Japan-protection of sound recordings; (4) Portugal-patent protection; (5) Pakistan-patent protection; (6) Turkey-tax on movies; (7) Hungary-agricultural subsidies; (8) Philippines-pork & poultry imports; (9) Brazil-auto regime; (10) Sweden- intellectual property protection; (11) Australia-salmon imports; (12) Greece-intellectual property protection; (13) Ireland-intellectual property protection; (14) Denmark-intellectual property protection; (15) Romania-customs valuation; (16) Philippines-auto regime; (17) Belgium-rice imports; (18) Brazil-patent law; (19) EU-corn gluten imports; (20) Mexico-hog imports; (21) Argentina- patent protection (partial); (22) China-VAT
22-U.S. won on core issue(s) (1) Japan-liquor taxes; (2) Canada-magazine imports; (3) EU-banana imports; (4) EU-banana imports (compliance proceedings); (5) EU-hormone- treated beef imports; (6) India-patent protection; (7) Argentina-textile imports; (8) Indonesia-auto regime; (9) Korea-liquor taxes; (10) Japan-fruit imports; (11) Canada-dairy sector; (12) Canada-dairy sector (compliance proceedings); (13) Australia-leather subsidies; (14) Australia-leather subsidies (compliance proceedings); (15) India-import licensing; (16) Mexico-antidumping duties on high-fructose corn syrup; (17) Mexico-antidumping duties on high-fructose corn syrup (compliance proceedings); (18) Canada-patent law; (19) Korea-beef imports; (20) India-auto regime; (21) Japan-apples (fire blight); (22) Mexico-telecom barriers
3-U.S. did not prevail on core issue(s): (1) Japan-film imports; (2) EU/Ireland/UK-tariff classification of computer equipment (three separate complaints consolidated into one case); (3) Korea-airport procurement
1-in appellate stage (1) Canada-wheat
5-in panel stage: (1) EU-Steel safeguards; (2) EU-biotech products; (3) EU-geographical indication protection; (4) Mexico-AD duties on beef and rice (rice); (5) Mexico-beverage tax;
5-in consultations: (1) Argentina-patent protection (partial); (2) Brazil-customs valuation; (3) Venezuela-import licensing; (4) Mexico-AD duties on beef and rice (beef); (5) Egypt-apparel tariffs;
12-monitoring progress or otherwise inactive: (1) Korea-import clearance; (2) Japan-Large Stores Law; (3) Belgium-yellow pages; (4) EU-dairy subsidies; (5) Chile-liquor taxes; (6) Belgium-tax subsidies; (7) France-tax subsidies; (8) Greece-tax subsidies; (9) Ireland-tax subsidies; (10) Netherlands-tax subsidies; (11) EU/France-avionics subsidies; (12) Argentina-footwear imports
14-resolved without litigation: (1) Autos (Japan); (2) Wool coats (India); (3) Various products (EU); (4) Tomatoes (Mexico); (5) Poultry (EU); (6) Urea (Germany); (7) Brooms (Colombia); (8) Helms-Burton Act (EU); (9) TVs (Korea); (10) Cattle, swine & grain (Canada); (11) Textiles (EU); (12) Massachusetts government procurement (EU, Japan); (13) Steel safeguards (Chinese-Taipei); (14) Orange juice (Brazil)
9-U.S. won on core issue(s): (1) Sections 301-310 of Trade Act of 1974 (EU); (2) “Shrimp/turtle” law (India, et al.) (compliance proceedings); (3) CVD regulations (Canada); (4) AD-steel plate (India); (5) CVD-German steel (EU); (6) Section 129©)(1) URAA (Canada); (7) Rules of origin-textiles and apparel products (India); (8) AD-sunset review (Japan); (9) CVD-softwood lumber (final) (Canada)
23-U.S. did not prevail on core issue(s): (1) Gasoline (Venezuela, Brazil); (2) Underwear (Costa Rica); (3) Wool shirts (India); (4) “Shrimp/turtle” law (India, et al.); (5) DRAMs (Korea); (6) UK leaded bars (EU); (7) Music licensing provision in US copyright law (EU); (8) 1916 Revenue Act (EU, Japan; two complaints consolidated into one case); (9) Bonding requirements (EU); (10) Wheat gluten import safeguard (EU); (11) Stainless steel AD (Korea); (12) Lamb meat import safeguard (Australia, New Zealand; two complaints consolidated into one case); (13) Hot-rolled steel AD (Japan); (14) Cotton yarn (Pakistan); (15) Section 211 of Omnibus Appropriations Act (EU); (16) Taxes on Foreign Sales Corporations (EU); (17) Taxes on Foreign Sales Corporations (EU) (compliance proceedings); (18) Line pipe safeguard (Korea); (19) CVDsteel products (EU); (20) CDSOA (Australia, et al.; two cases consolidated into one proceeding); (21) CVD-softwood lumber (prelim) (Canada); (22) Steel safeguards (EU, et al.; eight complaints consolidated into one case); (23) Injury-softwood lumber (Canada)
1-in appellate stage: (1) AD-softwood lumber (final) (Canada);
9-in panel stage: (1) Safeguards on steel line pipe and wire rod (EU);(2) Cotton subsidies (Brazil); (3) AD-sunset review (Argentina); (4) Gambling and betting services (Antigua & Barbuda); (5) CVD-steel plate (Mexico); (6) AD - cement (Mexico); (7) AD - OCTG (Mexico); (8) CVD - Semiconductors (Korea); (9) “Zeroing” of AD margins (EU)
7-in consultations: (1) CVD-steel (Brazil); (2) AD-steel pipe (Italy); (3) AD-silicon metal (Brazil); (4) AD/CVD-sunset reviews (EU); (5) Privatization (compliance proceedings) (EU); (6) Wheat injury (Canada); (7) Lumber CVD III (Canada)
9-monitoring progress or otherwise inactive: (1) Salmon (Chile); (2) Peanuts (Argentina); (3) Harbor maintenance tax (EU); (4) Live cattle (Canada); (5) Sugar syrups (Canada); (6) Section 337 of Tariff Act of 1930 (EU); (7) Amendment to Section 306 of Trade Act of 1974 (EU); (8) U.S. patent law (Brazil); (9) AD-softwood lumber (prelim) (Canada)
Source: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (.pdf file--look under "Monitoring & Enforcement")
Right. Please see my reply above.
WTO tells U.S. to change laws or pay up
The World Trade Organization has ruled that the United States must change its tax laws or face up to $4 billion in penalties. The ruling came after the European Union charged unfair trade practices against the U.S. for not requiring major corporations to pay tax on income earned abroad.
I know this is one of the issues that free traders get upset about and say this is why the offshore in the first place, or incorporate in Bermuda, etc. Well, because of intranational groups US cannot independatly set its tax policies.
The only ways a U.S. corporation can avoid paying taxes on world-wide income are either to set-up a foreign subsidiary and not repatriate the income (in which case the I.R.S. attempts to "capture" it in other ways), or to do a corporate "inversion" and relocate its headquarters to a tax jurisdiction that does not tax world-wide income.
Just another fine example of our tax laws being counter-productive.
Just another fine example of our tax laws being counter-productive.
And you can thank the WTO for that.
BTTT!!!!!!!
Hello? You can thank our legislators.
True, always the politicians are accountable. But the thing is with the WTO if our tax laws (or other laws) give the US a perceived advantage then someone like the EU can argue to have them changed. In the case of the profits made in foreign countries being taxed, it was either change US tax law or be fined billions of dollars and the WTO declared US needed to tax these profits made overseas.
The case is even in the example you posted if you do not beleive it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.