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.
Another fool. The people who are most against free trade are the Communists and Greens. You're in their camp, not I.
Ivan
In case you hadn't noticed, you can't get oil into say, oil barrels that are sealed to EPA standards by poking with a stick into the ground.
Would you please at least make an attempt at thought next time. Knee jerk reflexes are not doing the job.
Ivan
RIght, I'm encouraging socialism because I want less government intereference in trade, not more. It is you protectionists who want the government to pick and choose what it is that people can buy or sell. Socialism calls for the government to make such choices in individuals economic lives, and that is precisely what you are in favour of.
You're the flaming red pinko subversive, not I. I am not the weakling who believes my country cannot compete against foreign companies and goes running screaming to nanny government for protection. That designation belongs to the likes of you.
Ivan
Tariffs are a constitutional feature of the United States government. You are advocating that we overthrow our Constitution because you want a "new system", which is an old system, which America fought to throw out in the American Revolution. Your old system was garbage then for America and its garbage still.
I've seen you struggle with math in the past. I don't suppose you can back up the idea that we owe China $8 trillion? (snicker)
So if this "Free Trade" deal requires $2.7 Billion of government interference, with money confiscated from American taxpayers, that's somehow "less government interference"?
Your logic is twisted.
I've seen you struggle with your own stupidity in the past, Toddster. It's a sad sight to behold.
It's not interference, it's opening up markets. You protectionists on the other hand want to restrict trade, force consumers to make choices that are, in the end, going to be made in Washington.
Yet you claim to be conservatives. That's definitely twisted.
Ivan
Are you using the B. Clinton dictionary?
Screw free trade. Why do we sign these dumbass trade deals?
There are plenty of companies that finance protectionism because they profit from anti-capitalist practices. The sugar industry in the USA is a leading example - they find it's better to play politics than actually compete with the rest of the world. It's not so cut and dried that companies or financiers are in favour of capitalism. Not just protectionist losers scream for mummy government to protect them.
Setting intelligent policy, however, requires realising that capitalism provides the best consumer choice, and thus putting forward those policies which bolster it.
Ivan
What came first, flunking 5th grade math class or protectionism?
At what price?
Yeah, we wouldn't want the entire world to be full of capitalists now, would we? Do you believe that saving the people of developing countries from development is a noble cause? Is escaping poverty, disease and ignorance, with the hope of a better life, a good enough reason for promoting increased trade?
You cry about the spending of $2.7 billion to facilitate these sorts of agreements that help develop trade while, at the same time, adamantly defending farm price supports (welfare) that cost American taxpayers/consumers tens of billions a year.
Personally, I would much rather have these trade agreements without foreign aid or other subsidies provided by the US taxpayer. Unfortunately, these sorts of things are political realities that will benefit this country over the long term - unlike your beloved price supports.
Your focus on a small expenditure such as this, in light of the massive government waste on entitlements, shows us you have no sense of priorities or of proportion.
Surely we don't disagree that our government / corporations are subject to WTO rulings?
RE: "You're paranoid. And this time, no one is out to get you."
Cute.
I mentioned Bill Clinton because he is a World Economic Forum (WEF) regular and if it is paranoid to believe that the Clintons and their domestic and international "comrades" have other than promoting U.S. sovereignty and military power in mind -- given their Red China shenanigans -- then.. Guilty!
When I say Davos of course I mean the World Economic Forum where business, academic, political, government leaders from around the world meet to identify and debate the economic and social challenges of the day and "to shape global, regional and industry agendas."
Of course it cannot order it can only influence the mission of those who do have some authority over corporations and world trade, e.g., governments, the WTO, the UN, and the CEOs themselves.
Though corporations pay for the WEF the counter-WEF, World Social Forum, associates (international unions, NGOs) attend and speak at Davos.
I am not suggesting a worldwide government that owns everything down to and including the skid marks on underwear is in the works; i.e communism.
My main point: I am saying that it is impossible for me to believe that WEF / WSF, et al. of that ilk are planning to make the world safe and prosperous and then ride off into the sunset.
(Chuckle) So it's sorta kinda like a welfare program, isn't it?
I suppose I can understand why Karl Marx supported 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.