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.
That's funny I thought I did. It's about economic strength and the ability to keep pace militarily. True, it will be a few more years (10? less?) before they get close enough to really matter.
The threat of China today is greater than the Soviet threat was. China has an economy, the Soviets did not. The USSR was a third world country except for its military.
Will an even greater economy, one that includes those 800 million outside of the special economic zones, mitigate matters? W.W.II Germany and Japan were fairly prosperous, I believe.
Will the Chi-coms "launch a nuclear first strike on us?" I personally think they are much more apt to than the Soviets ever were. Not out of the blue necessarily but in any confrontation. Once they commit to a confrontation they'll do it, IMO. A nice test would be for the Chi-coms to put missiles in Cuba and see how Washington reacts.
Grenada and Nicaragua were short-lived. We'll see how long Red China has influence with Chávez and others.
Of course Eastern Europe is friendlier now than when they were republics in the U.S.S.R.
I was remiss in not emphasizing economics. It's the economy that's the difference between the old U.S.S.R. and Red China, IMO. One of the greatest one-liners ever would have been someone suggesting that the Ruble replace the dollar as the reserve currency.
Though Red China has tons of problems -- problems that I hope will sink it -- it's its growing economic strength that makes them more dangerous. In no way do I believe that the party will "whither away."
I was against granting China MFN status. If their government changes in the next 10 years, MFN will have succeeded, if not, it'll have been a mistake.
Hey sweetie, any luck finding a source for your ridiculous claim? Or were you delusional?
Well that's just about as close to the crux as you can get.
Meanwhile we'll look for clues of the outcome and keep on truckin' on these threads. :>)
Sounds good. I wasn't in favor of China getting the Olympics either, but if you look at Berlin 1936 and Moscow 1980, both regimes were gone within the next decade or so.
You always read my posts. Why don't you tell us?
Watch out! As usual, you're tilting the insult tally to the "free trader" side, who can always be counted on to insult much more frequently than those who want to preserve the American system.
It's not an insult if you truly are delusional. I guess you can prove me wrong by finding a source for your assertion. (snicker)
You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. But you go on making your facts up. It's one of the cute things we all love about you.
I understand the issue far better than you ever will...because I was FORCED to understand it. After spending years in the business world as sales management executive, I just yesterday finished a "Year End Cash Flow" statement for a moderately large farming operation (not sugar beets).
Many of the farm price support payments do go to very large cooperatives, absentee land owners, etc....fine...get rid of them! No problem there, whatsoever.
However, if you are interested in the actual life of the every day farmer; who, unlike other businesses, has minimal control over the prices paid for product, absolutely no ability to pass along increased input costs to the buyer; all while watching the "value-added" purchasers of his product raking in the millions...do get back to me.
We are talking about a rather low-debt, multi-million dollar operation, paying a couple of $20,000 per year salaries to two owners working 80 hrs/week (would YOU do that?). After figuring all input costs, and using a price for our grain that is completely manipulated by a system that should have been scrapped once everyone had phones, let alone the internet (the Board of Trade); we had a whopping 2% net profit! Whoo-hoo!
That is with the guaranteed government payments included.
If you still think that the price supports are not a gimme for the big campaign producers; if you still cannot understand that in a box of Corn Chex, you are paying for about $.20 worth of corn and $3.00 worth of everything else...do get back to me. If you get rid of the farm subsidies, then let us sell to anyone we want, at any time, anywhere...with no restrictions. WE cannot do that.
Since you are so knowledgeable, please do tell which "crops" Americans are supposed to focus on...we'll get right on it. I'll wait right here; as we need to make more money.
I have been on Free Republic for nearly 8 years. Virtually every word you've said, every cliche, every phrase is something I've heard before. You people never learn, never think, and are militant in your refusal to acknowledge facts.
At the heart of the protectionist fallacy is some idea that mother, nanny state can protect you from the rest of the world. It can decide to throw up barriers to protect domestic industries without penalty, and indeed lead to prosperity. This is not what would happen. Trade wars invite retaliation, and the people who would suffer most are those who are reliant on exports - as we are all reliant on exporting to each other, we all would suffer. Similarly, if we make it easier to trade to each other, we all will prosper. This simple truth has never penetrated the thick cranium of any protectionist idiot because like bratty children, they'll keep on sucking on their thumbs and demand mummy protect them from the mean nasty foreigners.
To conclude - unless you have anything new to say, shut up.
Ivan
There are very few nations that actually have slavery. You are not doing much business with Mauritania or Niger.
If you're referring to some countries having low wages, well I'm afraid most countries start out that way, including the United States. That does not make them "slavers".
Ivan
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.