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.

[hedgetrimmer]

Countries can work together to open trade, to get rich.

You didn't even read one word of USTR Rob Portman's statement did you.

But since Rob Portman has stated that a goal of "free trade" is to "eliminate poverty", and redistribution of wealth through aid-with-trade is one of the mechanisms, as a "free trader" you should be denouncing that, not calling me names.

[MadIvan]

But since Rob Portman has stated that a goal of "free trade" is to "eliminate poverty", and redistribution of wealth through aid-with-trade is one of the mechanisms, as a "free trader" you should be denouncing that, not calling me names.

Congratulations, you just repeated a mantra that the liberals believe - that one can only get rich at the expense of another. Wealth is something that grows, it is not a fixed amount that merely gets shifted from one to another. The increases in material wealth in the United States between 1950 and now should be enough to prove it - people drive better cars, live in bigger homes, afford more health care and so on. Wealth is created and multiplies.

Increases in economic activity, e.g., trade, help wealth to grow. You, on the other hand, believe that someone can only get rich by robbing you. Strange, that's what Karl Marx said. You're on the wrong site, Comrade.

And you wonder why I'm not nice to you.

Ivan

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Wow! That's some name calling. Bet I can match it.

You used to be a liberal, right?

[MadIvan]

You're not aware of the history of hedgetrimmer; if you were, you'd realise she only responds to being kicked very hard.

Ivan

[WilliamofCarmichael]

I say again, it's a Marxist revolution from the top down.

The "revolutionaries" are New Democrat Third Way "progressives" and the Davos crowd, the useful idiots are our corporations. The victims are the usual.

One of the rules in the "rules-based" world trade is the useful idiots must make rope, outsourcing the jobs to developing countries is preferred.

[hedgetrimmer]

Congratulations, you just repeated a mantra that the liberals believe - that one can only get rich at the expense of another

No I didn't. I pointed out that Rob Portman is taking 2.7 billion taxpayer dollars and giving them away to foreign countries. This is wealth redistribution and nothing less. He says it, right in his statement. The only place that $2.7 billion is going to come from is OUR economy, its not going to grow on trees in south America, silly.

[hedgetrimmer]

Countries can work together without any socialist motive.

Not when the WTO, the UN, the World Bank or any of the global socialists instutions are involved. And Rob Portman DID indicate his statement was referring to the WTO's Doha round.

[hedgetrimmer]

He calls names and kicks people very hard.

[MadIvan]

This appears to be your method:

1. Say something outrageously stupid.
2. Get called on it.
3. Deny you ever said it.

Run along little girl, you're not grown up enough to play in this league.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

No I didn't. I pointed out that Rob Portman is taking 2.7 billion taxpayer dollars and giving them away to foreign countries. This is wealth redistribution and nothing less. He says it, right in his statement. The only place that $2.7 billion is going to come from is OUR economy, its not going to grow on trees in south America, silly.

Let's try this one more time before I declare you the winner of the "Deserving a Grapefruit in the Face (ala James Cagney in "Public Enemy") Award".

What he is talking about is foreign aid to allow countries to participate in the market. This is so that the United States can trade with them, buy their things and they can buy American goods. In trade terms, it's a win-win situation. With a bit of luck and the right policies, those countries won't be basket cases any longer so that Sally Struthers won't get worked up asking for aid for them any longer.

But someone as stupid and blinkered as you makes primitive connections between events. I can almost hear the Neanderthal cadence of your paleolithic thought processes - "Ungh. Money go overseas. Ungh. Socialism. Ungh. Bad. Hedgetrimmer no like. Bad bad bad."

Ivan

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "Congratulations, you just repeated a mantra that the liberals believe. . . . "

(Response to another poster)

I remain perplexed at the insistence that it's only liberals -- I swear I look at New Democrat On Line (ndol.org) and I see New Democrat Third Way "progressives" calling for an end to 20th century liberalism. I take that to mean an end to the traditional Democrats of Humphrey and Scoop Jackson.

Enter the Davos Democrat of the Clintons and -- IMO -- the bulk of the DNC and Rat stalwarts.

I read praise of "free trade" and free markets (the only way to create wealth, they admit -- it is after all called, The Third Way).

"Free trade" must be rules-based (their rules) which include ILO / UN human rights requirements and promote "social and economic" justice . They are totally against laissez faire capitalism, they assuage the anti-WTO by promises -- just be patient they advise the protesters.

What the hell else is the Davos crowd up to if not world socialism with them in charge?

Last September Bill Clinton had the first meeting of his own "Davos" -- the original Davos is not moving fast enough for him.

"What do we want?!" "Social justice!!" When do we want it? "Now!!"

[MadIvan]

I see New Democrat Third Way "progressives" calling for an end to 20th century liberalism...I take that to mean an end to the traditional Democrats of Humphrey and Scoop Jackson.

Not exactly. The Third Way was code words for Democrats and Labour understanding that tax and spend wasn't going to sell to a skeptical public. Hence Clinton trying to paint himself as a moderate.

Enter the Davos Democrat of the Clintons and -- IMO -- the bulk of the DNC and Rat stalwarts.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's the Democrats following the lead of conservatives in following freer trade. If you don't believe me, look at the nuts that protest the trade talks - they're communists, greens and other associated scum.

"Free trade" must be rules-based (their rules) which include ILO / UN human rights requirements and promote "social and economic" justice .

That's what the nuts want. What the trade talks are intended to do is eliminate tariffs and subsidies.

What the hell else is the Davos crowd up to if not world socialism with them in charge?

You're paranoid. And this time, no one is out to get you.

Last September Bill Clinton had the first meeting of his own "Davos" -- the original Davos is not moving fast enough for him.

Bill Clinton has not been in power since January 2001. I realise his reign left deep scars, but really...

Ivan

[hedgetrimmer]

You're so very wrong.

I didn't say this, USTR Rob Portman did.
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.

What system is he talking about pray tell?

[MadIvan]

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.

He's talking about the global trading system. We're all supposed to get rich. I said this before. To conclude, I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension problems. Nor am I responsible for your insipid paranoia.

Ivan

[meadsjn]

Please read the f'n article. You're looking pretty silly about right now.

[MadIvan]

I only look silly to the people who are against free trade. Since I don't care what those crypto-socialist idiots think, I don't care what I look like to them.

Ivan

[hedgetrimmer]

What he is talking about is foreign aid to allow countries to participate in the market.

Here are some poor countries.

They have nothing we want, so we don't trade with them.

Here are some global socialists.

They take our money and give it to the poor countries so that they will make something to trade with us,even if we don't want it.

While it might be charity, if private individuals were putting up their own money to do this, its WELFARE when our government pays for it.

Yeah, a lose-lose situation. We're out a bunch of our tax money, being british of course you care nothing about that, and the "poor country" instead of competing and producing something for the world market on their own, gets a giant sized welfare check for just being there. Good one, MadIvan.

We don't need to ALLOW them to participate in the market. Don't you "free traders" talk about dropping all tariffs and allowing real competition? If they had anything of value, they'd be competing with us. As it stands you phony "free traders" would rather give them handouts, our jobs through outsourcing, and our manufacturing and agriculture through offshoring. Your system stinks, rather badly I might add.

[hedgetrimmer]

You only look silly because there is nothing FREE about the fraudulently named "free trade". If it were free, why is Rob Portman going to take $2.7 billion from us to "allow" "poor countries" to trade with us?

[meadsjn]

You are the one cheering for socialism. The Ambassador stated that the state department is increasing our "contribution" to $2.7 billion annually -- this to support "Free Trade".

When you take from one party (US taxpayers) and give to others, that is socialism, whether to recipients here in our slums, or to tin-pot dictators and bureaucrats in some third-world cesspool.

"Free Trade" is global socialism.

[MadIvan]

They have nothing we want, so we don't trade with them.

Oh? Many poor countries are at least resource rich. Africa has everything from chromium to oil.

They take our money and give it to the poor countries so that they will make something to trade with us,even if we don't want it.

That's not what the article says. They're talking about strengthening market conditions, not actually giving them industry. $2.7 billion wouldn't put industry into all the poor countries in the world.

While it might be charity, if private individuals were putting up their own money to do this, its WELFARE when our government pays for it.

It's expanding the market for American goods. But then again you're against trade, so you don't give a stuff about things like that. Even if it means that people might have more work in the United States in the future. You'd rather linger in some fantasy of autarky than actually admit that greater trade might be good for people. That alone would be just sad. But if people like you were ever in charge of policy, a lot of people's lives, in the United States and elsewhere, would be wrecked by the consequences of what you propose and cherish.

We don't need to ALLOW them to participate in the market. Don't you "free traders" talk about dropping all tariffs and allowing real competition?

Yes you do need to allow them into the market. The United States is not a free trade fantasy by any means - there are tarriffs and regulations about what any other nation sells to you. Sugar being a prime example - sugar is so bolstered by subsidies and protectionism that the Lifesaver factory moved from the USA to Canada because sugar is not protected in Canada, and therefore cheaper.

As it stands you phony "free traders" would rather give them handouts, our jobs through outsourcing, and our manufacturing and agriculture through offshoring. Your system stinks, rather badly I might add.

What we want is the following -

1. No subsidies.
2. No protectionism.
3. No tariffs.

If these were in place already, there wouldn't be a need to assist any other country to catch up or gain market entry. It is precisely people like you who slow progress towards greater market freedoms, and thus prevent wealth creation. Which is a damnable, awful thing.

Ivan