Posted on 07/25/2002 2:20:53 PM PDT by USA21
U.S. Wants Global Farm Subsidy Curbs
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration, criticized overseas for supporting a huge increase in U.S. farm subsidies this year, said Thursday it was prepared to seek cuts in such support as part of a new global trade agreement.
The proposal was included in a negotiating package the administration unveiled in advance of World Trade Organization farm negotiations scheduled to resume next week in Geneva.
"This plan is a win for America's farmers, ranchers and consumers and also a win for the global economy," U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick told reporters at a news conference.
The administration will seek a ban on export subsidies, payments provided to boost foreign sales, and sharp cuts in domestic support provided to farmers to boost production.
The U.S. proposal would cap this support at 5 percent of a country's total farm output, a figure that the administration said would trim $100 billion from the current level of subsidies provided by the United States, the European Union and other wealthy countries.
Beyond the curbs on trade distorting subsidies, the administration also called for global tariffs on farm products to be cut from a worldwide average of 62 percent to an average of 15 percent in five years.
The administration's proposal won praise from major U.S. farm groups, who believe they can reap billions of dollars in additional sales annually if other countries agree to lower barriers that are keeping American crops, meat and poultry out of their markets.
Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said, "The administration has put forward a credible and aggressive proposal" to tear down barriers being faced by American farmers.
Zoellick told reporters the administration hoped the proposal would help it pick up more votes in Congress for approval of Trade Promotion Authority, the congressional authorization Bush needs to conclude the new round of global trade talks.
The House approved its version of TPA last December by just one vote and must vote again after a House-Senate conference committee reconciles differences between the two chambers.
The administration is counting on votes from members of Congress from farm districts to overcome strong opposition to free trade agreements from organized labor, which believes U.S. workers have suffered unfair competition under past agreements.
While the farm proposal enjoyed strong support among U.S. agriculture interests, it was expected to run into heavy opposition from other countries, such as the 15-nation European Union and Japan, who heavily subsidize their own farmers and have high barriers to limit the entry of farm goods from other nations.
In May, the EU accused the United States of violating current curbs on farm subsidies when President Bush signed into law a new farm bill that is expected to cost $190 billion over 10 years, $83 billion more than the cost of continuing current programs.
However, Zoellick insisted on Thursday that the U.S. legislation does not violate existing WTO guidelines and that the administration would be willing to trim its subsidy payments as long as other nations do so as well.
Zoellick said that U.S. subsidies are capped by WTO rules at $19 billion annually, far below the $60 billion the EU can provide to its farmers or the $30 billion in Japanese subsidies.
Developing countries are pushing rich nations to sharply cut back on farm subsidies, which drive down world prices for many of the products they depend on as primary exports.
On tariffs, Zoellick said the U.S. proposal would cap the highest farm tariff a country could impose at 25 percent.
The proposal, if adopted, would result in the average tariff the U.S. imposes on farm products falling from 12 percent to 5 percent.
While that is still lower than the average farm tariffs in other countries, the U.S. proposal would narrow the wide gap that exists. In contrast to America's 12 percent average farm tariff, Zoellick said EU farm tariffs average around 31 percent.
The U.S. proposals were to be presented at a global conference on farm trade in Japan by Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and will also be formally presented at the WTO negotiations when they resume next week in Geneva.
ON THE NET
U.S. Trade Representative: http://www.ustr.gov
U.S. Agriculture Department: http://www.usda.gov
7/25/2002 5:37 PM
July 18, 2002 If the report becomes final - with a decision expected later this month - the U.S. will appeal, the official said.
"We vigorously defended the Byrd amendment, and we disagree with the panel ruling," the U.S. official said on condition of anonymity. "If this becomes final, we intend to appeal," the official said, adding that the ruling in no way affects the U.S. ability to impose antidumping duties or attack unfair trade practices.
At issue is an amendment to fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations legislation, put forward by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) that directs antidumping and countervailing duties from the general treasury and into financial aid for the industry petitioning for trade protection. At the time, the Clinton administration opposed the measure, saying that it would anger trading partners and invite WTO litigation. Indeed, the ruling is the result of a complaint brought by Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, and Thailand.
Canada's trade minister, Pierre Pettigrew, welcomed the decision. "This legislation is potentially harmful and disruptive to the international trading environment," Mr. Pettigrew said in a statement. "It means that the Byrd Amendment gives U.S. businesses a vested interest in having their government impose duties, because they would get a direct cut.
WTO panels generally issue their opinions to the parties involved for comment about a month before they issue a final report. Both sides in a dispute are allowed to request changes to the report, but in practice they are rarely made. "We believe Congress' ability to direct the use of duties is consistent with WTO rules," the official said.
-By Elizabeth Price, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9295; Elizabeth.Price@dowjones.com
If the Indians want to protect their unproductive domestic agriculture industry so that they can preserve jobs for 300 million people, then they should be allowed to. America is playing the role of bully and tyrant here. The elite's lust for 'globalism' is resulting in international organizations of un-elected people running roughshod over the legitimate laws made by elected lawmakers in various nations.
1. The WTO is a *unanimous* democracy. The only rules that exist are the ones that *everyone* has agreed to.
2. WTO judgements simply determine if one party has reneged on its previous agreements.
3. The WTO has no enforcement capabilities.
And you want our farmers to compete in this free market. Not to mention all the stuff Mr. Okie talks about.
Uh, they don't. They merely tell us what we previously agreed to do. See #7.
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.