U.S. Trade Representative Reviews Progress on Free Trade Goals

U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs ^ | 08 Jan 2006 | Ambassador Rob Portman

[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.

[Conservative Goddess]

Amen.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Alternatively, you could get rid of the subsides, but NOT until you get rid of the Government-supported cabal of price-fixing in Chicago

I guess this means you think the CBOT sets farm prices too low. If that were true and you were smart (LOL!!!) you and your farm buddies could buy up thousands of contracts and hold them for delivery of the underlying. As long as you also hold your crops off the market, the resulting short squeeze would cause prices to skyrocket. You'd all be rich and you could quit your whining.

Or, you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[expat_panama]

"Amen."

So you're agreeing with Gar that the CBOE has been making our food prices too low?

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you're agreeing with Gar that the CBOT has been making our food prices too low?

No. Just showing that she doesn't understand the market. If it was being manipulated, you could profit.

[dljordan]

"The people who are most against free trade are the Communists and Greens."

I thought Marx loved free trade and intended to use it to bring down capitalism. We don't have free trade anyway, we have a wealth transfer system that flows from the U.S. to "emerging nations".

"To sum up, what is free trade, what is free trade under the present condition of society? It is freedom of capital. When you have overthrown the few national barriers which still restrict the progress of capital, you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. So long as you let the relation of wage labor to capital exist, it does not matter how favorable the conditions under which the exchange of commodities takes place, there will always be a class which will exploit and a class which will be exploited. It is really difficult to understand the claim of the free-traders who imagine that the more advantageous application of capital will abolish the antagonism between industrial capitalists and wage workers. On the contrary, the only result will be that the antagonism of these two classes will stand out still more clearly."

Karl loved free trade becuase it alienated wage workers and made a commie takeover easier.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Karl loved free trade becuase it alienated wage workers and made a commie takeover easier

So why do the countries with freer trade have higher standards of living than the countries with more restrictions on trade?

[dljordan]

Hell, I don't know! I'm not an economist, just trying to keep the discussion going. New facts are always interesting.

[Conservative Goddess]

LOL. I agree that the average Joe or Jane would last about an hour on a farm. I agree that federal farm subsidy paperwork makes IRS forms look like childs play. I agree that no one who eats has cause to criticize the subsidies to American farmers. If you don't eat, then you have a right to complain about the subsidy. I agree that to the extent the US buys or sells grain stocks, they're indirectly manipulating the price. It's no different than what they do with the strategic petroleum reserve.

I agree that a free market is the best market, but until the prices are truly set by the market, and our agricultural exports are on an equal footing with other countries, SEE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1557528/posts

The subsidies are necessary...an in our vital national interest.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree that no one who eats has cause to criticize the subsidies to American farmers.

Why wouldn't I criticize subsidies? They make food more expensive and they cost taxpayer dollars. Aren't those two good reasons?

[MadIvan]

Karl loved free trade becuase it alienated wage workers and made a commie takeover easier.

He thought it would lead to the steady impoverishment of the workers...in the 19th century. No such thing happened. You protectionists are the real Marxists; you adhere to his economic analysis as if it was correct.

Ivan

[garandgal]

I guess this means you think the CBOT sets farm prices too low. If that were true and you were smart (LOL!!!) you and your farm buddies could buy up thousands of contracts and hold them for delivery of the underlying. As long as you also hold your crops off the market, the resulting short squeeze would cause prices to skyrocket. You'd all be rich and you could quit your whining.

OOOH! Good idea...why I hadn't thought of that...you're just SO smart, Toddster! I bet you have an MBA!

Why, farmers are treated just like any other business by banks. We get 9 month loans; with 8% interest rates, and have to put up 4X collateral to get them. That's typical isn't it?

Why, we'll all get together, call our collective banks to let them know that we won't be able to pay our $600,000 operating loans on time because we're waiting out the Board of Trade!

I'm sure they'll understand.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, I guess it's hard when all the rich guys gang up on you :^(

[garandgal]

Yeah, I guess it's hard when all the rich guys gang up on you :^(

Ah yes, when confronted with reality, throw out the class-envy argument.

I've spent years working in sales management for large companies; it gives me a unique perspective upon returning to a farm operation. I know how business works at all levels: manufacturing; distribution; and retail.

Farmers operate under NONE of the usual "free trade" parameters. They cannot, because the price paid for their products is artificially manipulated.

On a lighter note: I notice Dodge is coming out with a new "Challenger." It's supposed to be $35,000.

In the early 70's Dad was paid the same price for corn as we are today. I have a Dodge in the Garage from the era...sticker price $3800.

If only Dodge operated under the same "free market" conditions...

Farming...silly "buggy whip" industry...who needs a safe and reliable food supply, anyway?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Farmers operate under NONE of the usual "free trade" parameters. They cannot, because the price paid for their products is artificially manipulated.

Yes, I understand that the government manipulates the prices of farm goods. The government artificially raises prices. You're claiming the CBOT artificially lowers prices. Who on the CBOT does this? Is it the locals? The contract buyers? The sellers? The companies that are the final users?

Please explain how these villains artificially lower the price for farm goods.

On a lighter note: I notice Dodge is coming out with a new "Challenger." It's supposed to be $35,000.
In the early 70's Dad was paid the same price for corn as we are today. I have a Dodge in the Garage from the era...sticker price $3800.

Do I really need to explain to someone with all your sales experience that there is a difference between corn, an identical commodity produced by tens of thousands of farmers, and a Dodge Challenger, a specialized product containing thousands of high tech parts produced by only one manufacturer?

I don't suppose your farm is unionized? Any work rules that prevent you from automating or changing your procedures in any way? Could your productivity have increased faster than that of Dodge?

Hmmmmm......looks like production has tripled since 1970. Looks like yield has doubled. Do you need me to explain how that might impact prices?

[TChris]

The goal of "free trade" is to establish a transnational corporate feudal system where CEOs are sovereign and citizens are reduced to subsistance serfdom.

LOL! Willie, your paranoia is seriously laughable sometimes, do you know that?

If capitalism and free trade are so horrible, move to Cuba.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is Pat Buchanan still an assclown?

[1rudeboy]

The Founders of our Country must be rolling over in their graves that we actually have a generation of people stupid enough to actually think that "outsourcing" our food supply is a good idea.

How does one go about outsourcing Iowa?

[1rudeboy]

Farming...silly "buggy whip" industry...who needs a safe and reliable food supply, anyway?

Gosh, it must steam you to learn that the U.S. exports some $60B of it a year.

[garandgal]

Gosh, it must steam you to learn that the U.S. exports some $60B of it a year.

As usual, you completely ignore the point of the entire thread; take one sentence out of context...and post an irrelevant rebuttal.

The funny thing is, that I actually know something about this business. You, and several others on this thread, do not.

The days of your little self righteous "cabal" taking over threads and hurling insults is over....at least on this issue.

[1rudeboy]

The funny thing is, that I actually know something about this business.

Could've fooled me, after mouthing platitudes about "buggy-whip" industries. What's truly funny is not one person on this thread was making that argument until it popped into your head.