Posted on 01/10/2006 7:43:06 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
WTO committed to ending agricultural subsidies, other trade barriers
Keeping Doha Alive
After more than four years of negotiations with no breakthrough on the toughest issues, and a failed ministerial meeting in Cancun, expectations for Hong Kong were low. The December meeting of the World Trade Organization in Hong Kong kept the Doha Development Agenda trade talks alive.
Progress was made as more than 150 nations gathered to give developing countries a further stake in the global trading system and move forward in efforts to break down barriers to the free flow of agricultural and manufactured goods and services.
We were able to set a date of 2013 for the end of agricultural export subsidies and agree to a number of development initiatives. Perhaps most important, there was a recognition among trade ministers that we cannot afford to miss this once-in-a-generation opportunity to energize the global trading system, create economic growth and lift millions of people out of poverty. The consensus that more open trade is an important development tool is stronger as a result of our commitments in Hong Kong.
At the same time, we have a lot of hard work ahead to ensure a successful outcome for the Doha Round by the end of next year. The United States will continue to play a leadership role.
In a United Nations speech this fall, President Bush laid out a bold vision for open trade to bring renewed economic growth, hope and prosperity to the developing world. We believe that expanded market access, particularly in agriculture, is the key to a final agreement. I feel even more strongly about that after consulting with trading partners in Hong Kong, particularly those from Africa, Asia and Latin America. As World Bank studies make clear, the biggest gains for developing countries will come from opening markets to their agricultural output. What is more, an agreement to make deep cuts in tariffs and open up quotas on agriculture goods will pave the way for success in the Doha Round's other goals for reducing trade-distorting agriculture subsidies, cutting tariffs on industrial goods and obtaining meaningful new openings for services. We need to redouble efforts across the board, but agriculture is the linchpin for the success of the Round.
One reason the United States is more optimistic after Hong Kong is the meeting helped give the developing countries, most particularly the least-developed countries, a bigger stake in the global trading system. This came through a series of trade measures to support development.
We formalized a landmark breakthrough in the rules governing intellectual property rights that balances the needs of protecting patent rights with delivering life-saving medicines to areas hardest hit by disease. This will be of great importance to countries struggling to cope with HIV/AIDS, malaria and other health crises.
In addition, nations reinforced their commitment to development with significant new pledges of so-called aid for trade. This will help create the legal, administrative and physical infrastructures needed to help developing countries participate fully in the market openings we hope to achieve in the Doha Round. The United States is proud to lead the world in providing such assistance, and as part of the Doha Round, we announced a doubling of our contributions over the next five years from the current level of roughly $1.3 billion a year to $2.7 billion annually.
Also, we committed to duty-free/quota-free treatment for goods from the world's poorest countries. The United States is already the most open market in the world to these products. In Hong Kong, all developed countries agreed to provide even more trade opportunities for the least-developed.
What is more, we set the stage for cutting costly and confusing customs procedures. This will help facilitate and reduce the costs of trading between developing nations and also help them attract foreign investment. Two years ago at the WTO talks in Cancun, this issue of trade facilitation was a major stumbling block. But in Hong Kong, thanks to the work of a diverse group of countries, we were able to record real progress.
In Hong Kong, I was struck by the cooperation among countries at different levels of development and from all parts of the world. The long-held notion of a world divided by rich countries and poor countries, or North and South, is beginning to be replaced by a system in which countries of diverse make-ups work together in pursuit of common objectives.
For example, in Hong Kong the United States worked in common purpose with countries from Zambia to Japan on development initiatives. We worked closely with the Group of 20 developing countries from Latin America, Asia and Africa on agricultural market access and setting a date for ending agricultural export subsidies. We were in common purpose with India and Chile on services and we worked closely with our trading partners in Europe and Korea on reducing industrial tariffs.
Coming out of Hong Kong, the importance of the rules-based multilateral trading system and the peaceful pursuit of expanded commerce were reaffirmed. But now the 150 members of the WTO must join together to make real progress in bridging the fundamental divisions in the Doha negotiations. It will take contributions from all members. Unless this can happen early in this new year, we risk missing a unique opportunity to enhance global economic growth and alleviate poverty.
She has no source. Again.
As if any of your other posts actually contained facts. So out of whose orifice did you pull that made up fact?
My feelings are hurt. You are calling me a name and you didn't ping me on it.
Hello? He asked you a direct question and is waiting for a response. It's not his fault you cannot keep track of which questions from whom you are ignoring today.
--Charlie Daniels
Any luck on finding a citizen who isn't also a consumer?
Great song all the way around. I love Charlie.
Hedge-
Don't you have something more productive to do such as watching some paint dry instead of trying to talk sense with some of these rectal/crainial inversion types?
You're repeating a tired old mantra that the protectionist loons stick to when they run out of ideas.
I bet you're a complete moron.
There were some who wanted to trade with the Soviets. We should trade and help the people of the Soviet Union they said lest we play into the hands of the Soviet hardliners.
We did not trade, the Soviets remained a nuke threat and they financed proxy wars as they encouraged their "wars of liberation" (Viet Nam for example).
They had no real economy. They collapsed. We won.
Much was said about how President Reagan drove them into bankruptcy. Their economy could not support a military to match ours.
I believe that that is reasonably accurate. Our trade is of great value to the Chi-coms militarily IMO.
MAD helped stop the probably of nuke war with the Soviets.
The Chi-coms, from Mao to this day, have always posed a simple question, "We can afford to lose [insert population of U.S. here], how many can you afford to lose?"
IMO the Chi-coms saw what MAD did to the Soviets. IMO they will not back down.
They will support all our enemies like the Soviets did but they have the resources. The Soviets tried to get into our hemisphere but failed except for Cuba. They just did not have the resources. They could barely afford Cuba.
The Chi-coms apparently are doing much better on all fronts plus unlike the Cold War days there is no stigma to being pals with Chinese Communist tyrants.
IMO.
I tend to agree.
There are some 800 million citizens outside of the Chi-coms' special economic zones. There are a reported 60,000+ cases of clashes between citizens and authorities every year.
There is a "floating" population of unemployed estimated at 100 million people. That's besides the normal official unemployment.
Chi-com banks' nonperforming "loans" finance worthless Mao-era "enterprises" lest millions more become unemployed and real trouble develops.
Now, you'd think that with that much work to do to "raise boats" they'd make it a priority rather than expanding worldwide and building a military to confront us.
But today -- and this gets back "free trade" with developing countries and socialism -- it seems that these "developing" countries refuse to build an economy to provide opportunities for all their citizens then go forth into the world once they've proved themselves.
I put India in that category also.
Instead the "plan" is to take from developed countries and give to the "developing countries."
The "free traders" of both the conservatives and the New Democrat Third Way "progressives" acknowledge that it takes away from American workers. Gotta break them eggs, ya know, if we're going make global "progress."
The conservatives say that no American has a right to a job, jobs is jobs, and there will be high-payin' jobs created for all -- just you wait and see.
The "progessives" agree but argue that government help should be available for Americans who lose their jobs.
As I have said many times, the Chi-coms' revolution and great leaps upon the backs of tens of millions of Chinese killing them were all contemporaneous events for me.
Where have they changed except to implement Deng's version of Lenin's New Economic Plan to sucker useful idiots in to finance and build "socialism with Chinese characters?"
Here the "free traders" plan runs amuck and could get many of us killed, certainly it makes our military's job a mite more difficult.
IMO BTW, there's a big difference between "free trade" and free trade with our normal Asian and European partners. Free trade is good. I don't know of anyone against it.
Well, yeah that too. "Cheap" migrant labor. Remittances are critical for many "developing" countries.
As I recall the WTO is moving beyond trade and could be in the "services trade" and "social justice" business soon.
That's the plan also. Fold the ILO into the WTO, I bet. We're already conditioned to bow to the WTO.
I noticed you didn't answer the question. Compared to the USSR which had tanks and troops in the middle of Europe, how does the threat of China today compare to that? And what do you mean China will not back down? You think they'll launch a nuclear first strike on us?
They will support all our enemies like the Soviets did but they have the resources. The Soviets tried to get into our hemisphere but failed except for Cuba.
That's funny. I guess Grenada and Nicaragua were in a different hemisphere? What about Chile? That was a close one. What about Eastern Europe? Are they friendly now? Were they 20 years ago? Are there more democracies around the world now, or 20 years ago?
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.