Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 2nd December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

World trade talks fail as US clashes with new giants



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 July 2008
MARATHON talks for a new global trade deal collapsed last night after a clash over agriculture between the United States, the world's biggest economy, and emerging heavyweights.
The breakdown came on the ninth day as the US and India failed to find a compromise on measures intended to help poor countries protect their farmers against import surges, a diplomat said.

US trade representative Susan Schwab appeared downcast a
s she began to brief reporters.

She said negotiators were "so close on Friday", but then stopped speaking. Asked if the entire Doha trade round was over, she said, "I didn't say that" and walked away.

However, the failure of the talks to find agreement on the core agriculture and industrial goods chapters of the Doha trade round could delay any final accord on trade liberalisation for several more years.

Washington had opposed a push from India, China and Indonesia to secure measures to protect their farmers if faced with sudden surges of cheap farm imports.

The impasse derailed substantial progress that had been made on other agricultural, manufacturing and services trade issues.

As failure looked likely, Phil Goff, New Zealand's trade minister, held out hope for Doha talks continuing at a later date.

"I hope… that what we've achieved this week can be used at least to build on as a foundation for the future," he said.

Peter Power, a spokesman for the European Union, called the breakdown a "massive blow to confidence in the global economy".

The negotiations for a global deal trade began in 2001 in the hope of boosting the world economy and helping poor countries.

Some officials had described this meeting at the WTO's Geneva HQ as a last chance for the trade round launched in Qatar's capital back then, noting that US and other national elections would make negotiations difficult over the next couple of years.

Without a final deal, Europe will not be required to open up its farm markets to emerging powers in Latin America and elsewhere. Brazil, China, India and other fast-growing developing nations won't have to ease access to manufacturing imports from the rich world. And the US will not have to make any tough decisions on the billions of dollars in farm subsidies it pays out to American growers of cotton, soyabean, rice and other staples.

The debate over farm subsidies has taken on added significance amid the recent spike in food prices around the world. Poorer nations say the payments distort global farm markets and hinder the development of sustainable agriculture in the Third World.

But talks over the last nine days had brought consensus on many of the problems that scuttled major trade meetings in Cancun, Mexico, in 2003 and in Hong Kong two years later.

A number of trade officials described the debate pitting the US against China and India as one of principle – and not just hard economics. Others blamed a lack of courage for the stand-off.

"It is a jump in the dark," Celso Amorim, Brazil's foreign minister, said before the final efforts yesterday. "You can't calculate until the very last situation all the hypotheses. If you do that (the round) will never finish. It will take two years, three years. It will probably be for a new generation."

The issue concerned a "special safeguard" that developing countries, led by China and India, have demanded to deal with a sudden surge of imports or drop in prices.

While farm import safeguards exist in rich and poor countries, they are rarely used. The dispute over the current proposals concerns the threshold for when developing nations could sharply raise their tariffs, and by how high those taxes could rise.

The US had accused the two emerging powers of insisting on allowances to raise farm tariffs above even their current levels. That violates the spirit of the trade round, the US and other agricultural exporters argued, because it is supposed to help poorer countries develop their economies by boosting their exports of farm produce.

Strain takes its toll on exhausted negotiators


THE World Trade Organisation's marathon-running chief pushed diplomats to their physical limits in gruelling late-night negotiating sessions.


"People are visibly tired. This is the longest we have ever gone like this in a ministerial conference," said a trade official who took part in the talks chaired by Pascal Lamy.

The mood at the WTO's Geneva HQ swung from hopeful to jovial to frank to "extremely tense" over the unprecedented nine-day talks, the official said.

"They were getting really frazzled. They have been working round the clock."

Mr Lamy had called ministers to Geneva to push for a basic deal in the Doha round of talks, which began in 2001 and were meant to wrap up in January 2005, nine months before he took over as WTO chief. The Frenchman quickly reduced the talks to a subset of seven ministers.

But compromise proposals palatable to the small group received a mixed reception from the WTO's wider membership and caused a split between India and its ally Brazil.








The full article contains 852 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 July 2008 11:01 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

yockel,

30/07/2008 06:40:56
Did they realise that negotiating with the US is simply a case of ascertaining how much they intend to rip you off.
2

gus1940,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 08:29:20
Septics screwing up the world - situation normal.
3

Sedov,

Scotland 30/07/2008 09:45:58
Globalisation is great when it works in favour of the wealthy nations but when it doesn't and money gets tight, the national interests of the big players kicks in especially during lean times. It is no coincidence that this decision has come in the middle of a credit crunch when national interests come before the empty promises by the rich nations of solving poverty throughout the world. We now witness the other side of the coin to global economy -protectionism, which is a product of the nation state.
Lip service is being paid to making poverty history, and the developing countries suffer at the hands of big business corporate interests in the US, Europe and Asia. In fact this is an example of how nationalism acts as a stopper to development in a capitalist society which is now incapable of taking society forward. The global economy, even when its working to its capacity, is unplanned and inefficient. Only a planned society based on need not profit can save the planet. Internationalism under such a society is the only way forward.
4

57Nomad,

california 30/07/2008 10:31:13
#4 Sedov

Sedov said:

"Only a planned society based on need not profit can save the planet."

Say what? A planned society? Who, pray tell, is going to do the planning? I believe, my dear Sedov, you are referring to what is known as a "command economy." Free societies cannot exist in a command economy. They are mutually exclusive.

The topic here is agricultural subsidies. It has little to do with grandiose propositions for remaking the worlds economies, so your comments are not particularly germane.

But as a matter of curiosities, I would like to hear you substantiate your claims:

"Lip service is being paid to making poverty history, and the developing countries suffer at the hands of big business corporate interests in the US, Europe and Asia. In fact this is an example of how nationalism acts as a stopper to development in a capitalist society which is now incapable of taking society forward."

You say that developing countries suffer at the hands of big business. Really? Would you care to offer a defense of this improbable proposition"? Here is where you are going to have trouble. One of the countries you name is China. Are you saying that China is a poorer place with the boom is business and trade that is driving the Chinese economy? Maybe you are not old enough to remember what China was like when it sported the kind of command economy that you favor. Don't you understand that big business is what pulled China out of the economic gutter? Same with India. The reason that the article refers to these two countries as "emerging powerhouses" is because of capitalist free enterprise.

It was the abandonment of the type of economies that you propose that saved both India and China. What do you have against the Indians and Chinese anyway? Are you anxious to bring back the days when special crews had to walk the streets of Calcutta and Delhi to pick of the corpses of the people who had starved to death during the night? What kind of a p
5

Mashimaro,

China 30/07/2008 12:15:11
Wow Nomad, talk about rewriting history. There are many things that "pulled China out of the ecnomic gutter" that would never have happened it it hadn't been for the tight rein Communism maintains. And you know it.
6

Sedov,

Scotland 30/07/2008 12:38:22
#6 nomad - whether you agree with me or not is neither here nor there to me, the main thing is, that like may people you are thinking about what is going on and what is causing the present crisis within the capitalist system. I could give you a long scientific reply to you but frankly I have not got the time right now, suffice to say tha far from being a capitalist FREE enterprise indeed we are all paying through the nose for the credit crunch hence the bail out to the banks by the tax payers both here and in the US. In fact it is nnly the huge dollar reserves that the US has that is saving their economy from complete collapse. China has decided to go along with the market economy rules to a certain extent and they will have to accept that their market, which is very reliant on the wests ability to buy their goods will affect them as well. If you live by the rules -you die by the rules and underneath the veil of secrecy in that country it is reported that their is much industrial unrest.The market economy in China has forced many people into the cities. The average Chinese worker works a 12 hour day, 6.5 days a weeek and lives and sleeps in their workplace. The workers and peasants of the world, and particularly those of the so-called Third World, are once again left to fend for themselves. Every year 10 million children die of poverty-related ailments due to malnourishment, currently most prevalent in Nepal, Bangladesh and sub-Saharan Africa. Eight hundred and fifteen million people are deemed “undernourished” by the UN and 852 million are deemed “hungry,” which means they cannot acquire enough food to sustain a healthy caloric intake each day

Even in your own country, the United States, the richest country on earth, 10 percent of the population relies on government food aid. More than half of all food stamp benefits are used on children and for many families, once the children are fed, the parents go hungry

In answer to the U.S. FAO representative’s pos
7

SouthernGent,

30/07/2008 15:20:14
#8
"Even in your own country, the United States, the richest country on earth, 10 percent of the population relies on government food aid."

And it will most likely remain that way, in the US and other countries. Not because of capitalism, but because of socialism. That 10% is so dependant on handouts that they have NO desire to better themselves. It is a choice. Free Education is available to all in this country, yet there has been and will be a certain percentage of people that choose not to take advantage of it. Education and motivation will take you as high as you want to go. But you have to put forth the effort to get there. These people refuse to put forth the effort, and people like you want to reward them with more handouts.
8

57Nomad,

california 30/07/2008 18:21:51
#7 msh

msh said:

"Wow Nomad, talk about rewriting history. There are many things that "pulled China out of the ecnomic gutter" that would never have happened it it hadn't been for the tight rein Communism maintains. And you know it."

Some people talk about rewriting history and there are others, more stalwart perhaps, like Mashi, here who actually do it. Mashi, do you know what it means to be a communist? It means that, for starters, that individuals are the property of the state. This is what the hoi poloi, and other unwashed call slavery.

Mashi, when you say "that would never have happened it it hadn't been for the tight rein Communism maintains. And you know it." The troubling question then arises. A tight rein over whom? You talk about the commies holding one end of the reins, who are those reins attached to? Do you mean they have a tight rein over all the trees? All the frogs? If they had a little tighter control over their ducks and pigs we wouldn't have a new variation of the flu blowing out of China every year. But, I digress, so answer this, if the commies have a tight rein, do you mean that they have a tight rein on the Chinese people? I think you do. What is it that make you have such a deep seated animosity toward the Chinese? Is there something inherently dangerous or unstable in the Chinese character that needs to be constantly controlled by their Marxist masters?

Here are two examples of the "tight control of the Communist party" you so admire. In 1958, Comrade Mao (known to his close personal friends as 'the big eggroll) launched the 'Great Leap Forward.' This is a perfect example of the tight control of the communist party. Somewhere between 15 and 40 million people starved to death. Nice work, Mashi.

Then the same 'tight controllers' who managed to starve the equivalent of the entire population of the state of Florida, to death, now tightly reined the people of China into the "Cultural Revolution." Here is another unmitig
9

57Nomad,

30/07/2008 18:23:07
#11 contd

Then the same 'tight controllers' who managed to starve the equivalent of the entire population of the state of Florida, to death, now tightly reined the people of China into the "Cultural Revolution." Here is another unmitigated disaster cooked up by the very people you wish to hold the reins.

It is you, comrade kung pao, who is trying to rewrite history. Let me give you some friendly advise. The next time you try to rewrite history, learn some first
10

Itchy,

30/07/2008 18:40:05
#7 "There are many things that "pulled China out of the ecnomic gutter" that would never have happened it it hadn't been for the tight rein Communism maintains. And you know it.
"

Liar. Communism failed totally. Ever heard of the 'Great Leap Forward'? How many millions died?

China was forced to liberalize and that is why the country made progress.

#4 your planned society is totalitarian and your ignorance breathtaking. Apparently, despite all the regulations and taxes and interventionism of today's governments, the current economic crunch is the fault of capitalism. You are genocidal.
11

Itchy,

30/07/2008 18:41:10
"3 gus1940,Edinburgh 30/07/2008 08:29:20
Septics screwing up the world - situation normal."

Yes, just ignore all the commie governments and protectionist governments out there. You can then blame America with impunity and have nothing to say yourself.
12

57Nomad,

california 30/07/2008 23:17:56
#8 Sedov

Sedov, thank you for your thoughtful reply. You raised a number of points, too many to reply to in single post so I'll take them individually til I run out of space.

You say:

"that like may people you are thinking about what is going on and what is causing the present crisis within the capitalist system. I could give you a long scientific reply to you but frankly I have not got the time right now, suffice to say tha far from being a capitalist FREE enterprise indeed we are all paying through the nose for the credit crunch hence the bail out to the banks by the tax payers both here and in the US."

You use the term "crisis within the capitalist system." Yet you fail to describe this 'crisis.' The only crisis of the capitalist system that I'm aware of is that I can't afford that new Corvette (the 502 hp model, daytona blue, roadster)I want. You are referencing communist dogma. In communist theorizing, the march to communism will be preceded in time by a "general crisis of the capitalist system."

The economies of the capitalist countries are doing just fine thank you very much. Just saying that there is a crisis is not the same as there actually being a crisis. There is none. The American economy is growing and will continue to grow and for a very simple reason. The driving force behind all economies is the productivity of the individual worker. American workers are the most productive in the world.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/business/main3228735.shtml

If we get behind in our credit accounts we have 'the works every time,' solution. We work harder. Get that? We will put in more hours, moonlight at a second job, whatever. The bottom line is this, whatever hole we dig ourselves into we can always work our way out of. We are a self-reliant people.

13

John Galt,

30/07/2008 23:22:28
Suggested reading: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
14

57Nomad,

california 30/07/2008 23:34:01
#8 Sedov, continuing,

"The average Chinese worker works a 12 hour day, 6.5 days a weeek and lives and sleeps in their workplace"

You state this as if there is an obvious conclusion to be drawn, but you don't do that and leave the thought dangling. May I comment? 12 hours a day, 6 days a week? Well, boo hoo. Big deal. I have my own company and I've worked 16 hours a day 7 days a week without a vacation for years in a row. So, what's the deal with these lazy Chinese workers? If they'd get off their butts and start leaning into it they'd get ahead faster.

Then this:

"The workers and peasants of the world, and particularly those of the so-called Third World, are once again left to fend for themselves."

Left to fend for themselves? You say that as if it were a bad thing. Who do they expect is going to fend for them? Or for that matter, who do you, Sedov, think ought to be fending for them? Don't you think that its more than a little condescending to think that people are incapable of standing on their own two feet?

Then:

"Every year 10 million children die of poverty-related ailments due to malnourishment, currently most prevalent in Nepal, Bangladesh and sub-Saharan Africa."

If you check out the economies and political systems in
Sub-saharan Africa, you will not find a single free enterprise system among them. They are the 'democratic people's' governments that moved in when the European colonialists moved out. So saying there are starving children in the world, while a sad truth, doesn't bolster your case in the slightest and it is puzzling why you included it at all.





15

jesse hatcher,

louisville Ky usa 31/07/2008 00:26:16
Google "illuminati" and you will see the truth.
16

Gulliver,

Harare 31/07/2008 09:54:46
# 17, 57 Nomad

I agree with your point that people need to work hard and fend for themselves. And in Africa people need to move away from playing the victim and expect handouts.

Developing nations have to identify the conditions that have been unfavourable in ensuring food security and trade in general.

I think it is NAIVE for developing countries to imagine that Europe and the US will want to compete with them at the same level and risk unemployment in their borders so that foreigners get employed and become wealthier than them.

The issue of 1bn a day in agricultural subsidies by Europe and USD to protect their businesses is not going to go away just like that. They are acting in their own self-interest. In fact it could end up being a huge distraction for developing countries and prevent them from focusing on other areas where their competitive and comparative advantage could be better applied.

Developing countries need have to re-look at the whole debt business especially debts inherited from colonial regimes and assess whether these are not being used to keep them from making bold decisions that would put their economic prosperity and destiny in their own hands.

As far as the political systems used to run affairs I think capitalism and communism in their pure form cannot achieve the kind of development and stability required. There can never be real equality under the 2 systems and maybe it may not actually not be neccessary that there be equality under any of the systems for humanity to advance. However, what is needed is to ensure that the governments acts as a stabilizing force, facilitating competitive development but at the same time preventing and managing market failures so that such failures do not lead to things like civil war.
17

wisdom32,

international 31/07/2008 14:08:15
#10 Southern Gent
You are so off on this topic I dont even know why you commented. The issue is bigger than just everyday citizens, if you just open your mind and educate yourself you will understand this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
18

Itchy,

31/07/2008 19:15:08
#16 bought it 9 years ago.
19

Itchy,

31/07/2008 19:18:06
"I think capitalism and communism in their pure form cannot achieve the kind of development and stability required. "

How exactly does Communism aid development?

BTW no country benefits from subsidies and protective tariffs. They are just a redistribution of wealth from the country as a whole to the politically favoured few.
20

Gulliver,

Harare 01/08/2008 07:45:26
# 22 Itchy

I'm surprised you quoted me verbatim yet you proceed to ask me that question. For the purposes of clarity- NEITHER PURE CAPTIALISM NOR PURE COMMUNISM CAN BRING BOTH STABILITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.
21

SouthernGent,

02/08/2008 22:57:27
#20
I believe you may be the one needing some education. My comment was in direct response to the poster at #8. Know the rules if you want to play the game.
22

57Nomad,

california 02/08/2008 23:40:48
#19 Gulliver

You've made provocative observation.

"There can never be real equality under the 2 systems and maybe it may not actually not be neccessary that there be equality under any of the systems for humanity to advance."

This brings up an interesting point. Maybe more than interesting, vital. When you say there can never be, "true equality," the notion of "equality," must be clearly defined. Its tricky. For some, especially the collectivists, equality means everybody shares equally in all the stuff. Others, however, yours truly being one of them, find this a pernicious interpretation.

Equality means equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Those people who work the hardest and contribute the most should be rewarded in a way that reflects the magnitude of their contribution.

Those who believe that equality of outcome believe that if a dishwasher works 8 hours a day that person in entitled the same share of the stuff as a heart surgeon who works 8 hours a day. This isn't equality, it's slavery.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.