Thread: World trade talks end in collapse

Page last updated at 22:46 GMT, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 23:46 UK

World trade talks end in collapse

EU trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's reaction

Marathon talks in Geneva aimed at liberalising global trade have collapsed, the head of the World Trade Organisation has said.

Pascal Lamy confirmed the failure, which officials have blamed on China, India and the US failing to agree on import rules.

EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the result was "heartbreaking".

The talks were launched in 2001 in Doha and were seen as providing a cornerstone for future global trade.

The main stumbling block was farm import rules, which allow countries to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on certain goods in the event of a drop in prices or a surge in imports.

India, China and the US could not agree on the tariff threshold for such an event.

Washington said that the "safeguard clause" protecting developing nations from unrestricted imports had been set too low.

Possible solution?

The negotiations floundered as trade officials gathered for a ninth day.

"There's no use beating around the bush, this meeting has collapsed," Mr Lamy said.

"Members have simply not been able to bridge their differences."

He added that time was needed to determine "if and how" WTO members could end the stalemate.


This is a better outcome for the world's poorest people than the bad deal on the table; World Development Movement

The Doha development round of trade talks initially started in 2001 with the aim of remedying inequality so that the developing world could benefit more from freer trade.

However, the talks have repeatedly collapsed as developed countries failed to agree with developing nations on terms of access to each others' markets.

The US and the European Union want greater access to provide services to fast-growing emerging countries, including China and India.

Meanwhile, developing countries want greater access for their agricultural products in Europe and the US.

Recent complications

Analysts have said that the collapse of the Doha talks could symbolise an end to multilateral trade agreements.

America's top trade negotiator Susan Schwab on the talks
Instead, nations may pursue dual agreements with partner nations, preferring to focus on their own requirements rather than a more common negotiating goal.

The talks in Geneva were complicated by recent increases in the price of food and fuel.

Higher prices have prompted protests in both developed and developing nations, making it harder for negotiators to reach a compromise on opening up their markets to greater competition, analysts said.

Mr Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, blamed the collapse on a "collective failure" but warned that the "consequences would not be equal", predicting that it would be countries that most needed help that would be hit hardest.

"They [the consequences] will fall disproportionately on those who are most vulnerable in the global economy, those who needed the chances, the opportunities most from a successful trade round." he said.

'Protecting livelihoods'

Trade officials had struck an optimistic tone on Friday, but this evaporated over the weekend amid acrimonious exchanges with the US accusing India and China of blocking progress.

The US said they were being overly protective towards their own farmers and are failing to do enough to open their markets, with US trade representative Susan Schwab calling the stance "blatant protectionism".

"In the face of the global food price crisis, it is ironic that the debate came down to how much and how fast could nations raise their barriers to imports of food," she said.

But India's trade minister, Kamal Nath, who had been criticised by a number of countries for his intransigence said the US demands were unreasonable.

"It's unfortunate in a development round we couldn't run the last mile because of an issue concerning livelihood security," Mr Nath said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7531099.stm

Someone please explain what is wrong with "protectionism" when you want your own country and people to do better? Don't Americans give away enough to the world in aid, and now allowing visas for HIV/AIDs people to come here. How much more is this political correctness going to cost us?

The only thing they are worried about are poor farmers in India and China?

What about all the Americans losing their jobs here in the USA from outsourcing and cheap imports?

Originally Posted by vortex

Someone please explain what is wrong with "protectionism" when you want your own country and people to do better? Don't Americans give away enough to the world in aid, and now allowing visas for HIV/AIDs people to come here. How much more is this political correctness going to cost us?

Because to the true globalist/OBL type, countries are mere places that have different rules, maybe a different language, a cost of living and doing business. Countries are assumed to have no inherent 'right' to control anything within. Of course, protectionism (eg. aka 'self-determination') is seen as a mere impediment to doing business in the way the globalist wants to do things.

One of long running debates in the Int'l Relations/Pol. Sci. area deals with the relevance of the nation-state in contemporary times. Many people believe nations are like flavors of ice cream - to be changed upon a whim, and shifted to suit the taste of the day. Others (myself for one) believe that they have existed for hundreds maybe even thousands of years for a reason - as they bind large groups of people in cohesive and understandable ways and are as relevant as ever.

One of the focuses of this article is that as part of the proposed deal whipped up by the US WTO Trade Representative was a presumed 'promise' of a large number of work visas for foreign folk. This is important because a trade representative has no authority nor any power to ESTABLISH immigration policy - that is done by Congress and enforced by USCIS/USCBP/USICE.
Immigration <> Trade Policy. The Boosh Admin. is trying to pull another fast one in hopes to please other countries

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... dt.01.html

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Well negotiations at the World Trade Organization over opening new global markets is the way they put it have collapsed. That should be good news for each and every American citizen, especially our workers. Those talks stalled just as the United States appeared to be about to cave in to the demands from of all places India, demands that would have allowed Indian workers to circumvent U.S. H-1B guest worker visa programs.

Bill Tucker has our story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was not a dispute over visas that stalled this latest round as India had threatened, but an impasse over agricultural issues.

PASCAL LAMY, CHAIRMAN, WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: This meeting has collapsed.

TUCKER: The fact that American negotiators won't disclose what was offered in the way of new guest worker visas has some observers outraged.

PROF. RON HIRA, ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: I think it is pretty clear that this is all done under the cover of night. This is clearly immigration policy being made and, you know, I think it should scare all of us in a democracy that we don't even know what is being offered what is being bargained away.

TUCKER: The United States Trade Representatives Office has refused to comment on what that offer might have been. What it is feared is that this latest round of trade talks within the World Trade Organization, known as the Doha round is fundamentally changing the nature of what is negotiated at the trade table.

In return for access to foreign markets, negotiators are bargaining jobs. One critic whose group favors tightly controlled immigration says we should be wary of what is being done in the name of free trade.

JESSICA VAUGHAN, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: What they're calling trade is really access to the job market. They're not looking to come in and provide a service for a brief period of time. They're looking for permanent access and the ability to bring in people for years at a time, to perform work that was formally being done by U.S. workers.

TUCKER: The collapse of this round of talks does not mean American workers can or should sleep easy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: Now these talks could resume as early as this fall, though it is more likely they won't resume until after we elect a new president. And when they do the issue of visas for foreign workers, Lou, will still be on that table and just tonight before we came up, before the show started, U.S. Trade Representative Schwab said all offers remain active and on the table.

DOBBS: Well certainly this administration with what about six months left here, I mean the amount of damage they could do is -- well just almost unlimited. What they have done has been disgusting and disgraceful and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if things would be on the table...

TUCKER: Right.

DOBBS: ... especially the rights of American workers, the ability of corporations, and particularly of course Indian corporations to bring in more Indian workers in the United States to outsource American jobs to. I mean, the national news media, right now, doesn't have a clue what it means when we say the Doha round as part of the World Trade Organization talks.

They don't even know what we're talking about. They haven't got an interest in fighting back for the rights of working men and women in this country. It is unbelievable.

TUCKER: It is alarming, Lou, and I don't think that they understand. Jobs are being offered. This is not trade talks as you and I and everyone understands trade talks to be, my products for your products. This is you let my products in, we'll let your workers in, and we'll let your workers take our jobs. That's the equation now.

DOBBS: It is the equation. It has been the equation. It has been the -- actually the basis for the entire Bush administration so- called free trade initiatives, across the board. They're outsourcing agreements.

There should be no, absolutely no doubt about it. And as you say, in this round, we're talking about legitimizing the flow of cheap labor into the United States for an -- unlimited amount of time at this juncture. But what I would like everyone to focus on is one part of what you reported, if nothing else, just one part.

We don't know, as American citizens, what our government was negotiating in the World Trade Organization, which puts the World Trade Organization as a supreme and sovereign entity over that of the United States and what we used to call a democracy. And that, that to me, is a crime, a crime against our people, and a crime against our nation. Bill, thank you very much. Bill Tucker.

What did I do until I found ALIPAC? I was hunting for ALIPAC for sure

You guy are too smart

Originally Posted by vmonkey56

What did I do until I found ALIPAC? I was hunting for ALIPAC for sure

You guy are too smart

Got to keep after 'em