Citizen G'kar: Musings on Earth

December 14, 2005

What Is At Risk in Hong Kong Trade Negotiations?

The World Trade Organization talks began yesterday in Hong Kong. For those of us that may read occasional headlines about it all and wonder what all the hubbub is about, I've taken excerpts from articles over the past couple months leading up to the talks to develop some background on this event, or non-event whatever your point of view. My interest in this is about the subject of Globalization which to me sounds like in general a good idea. It appears to me that countries like the US and China or Japan and China have so much at stake in trade, they'll never consider going to war. I understand that there are many on the left hand of the spectrum that are fully against Globalization and free trade wanting instead to protect jobs in their own country. Such trade protectionism was rife during the Great Depression. I don't see any evidence that it did anyone any good, in fact, I've seen some say that it made it worse. History seems to have the view that WWII and it's growth in production and trade of war materials was the event that ended the Depression.
Let's overview the spectacle before digging into some of the details. The main issue running through the articles I reviewed is whether the talks are important or not. Everyone seems to like the idea of free trade, but everyone has a different idea of what that means.
Of significance is the location, Hong Kong, now a province of China, an apparently former communist country run by a bureaucratic government. Hong Kong has a level of freedom not allowed in the rest of China.
International Herald Tribune
When progress slowed at the WTO in the past, the United States shifted its attention to bilateral and regional trade agreements. Those agreements are a relatively easy way to score political points at home, and they can also be used to reward individual countries that have supported American goals in foreign policy. For example, the news release announcing the White House's intent to negotiate deals with Oman and the United Arab Emirates quoted the following passage from the 9/11 Commission's report: "Muslim countries can become full participants in the rules-based global trading system as the United States considers lowering the trade barriers with the poorest Arab nations." If the United States expanded its bilateral negotiations to include mid-size developing economies that it also wants to cultivate politically, like Pakistan or Indonesia, it would probably get the EU's attention. To ensure equal terms of trade with these countries, the EU might prefer to negotiate alongside the United States in the WTO.


On the other hand, a shift toward bilateral and regional deals might suit the EU just fine. Indeed, the EU has been the world's most successful negotiator of these pacts, with about 30 of them confirmed or in progress. And a shift away from the WTO would allow the EU to maintain its cherished system of trade preferences for member nations' former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. The more the EU has to cut its tariffs, the less meaningful are the preferences granted by that system. What if the EU keeps stalling, the United States loses interest rather than taking the EU's side and then the EU also moves its business elsewhere? The losers would be the developing countries that are petitioning the EU for more concessions. In this light, their impatience with the EU may be counterproductive.


Among the smaller developing countries, especially those that rely on agriculture, a counterproductive position could become downright disastrous. Many of them went into these talks expecting freebies. The talks were called a "development round" because they were supposed to leverage trade as an instrument for economic growth in underdeveloped areas - a goal that would probably require some preferential deals for poor countries' products. Yet these same poor countries generally lack the resources to engage in nonstop, high-level negotiations with the likes of the EU and the United States. That has left Brazil, India and occasionally Pakistan taking the lead in demanding that rich countries open their markets, especially for crops.


If the talks collapse because of the demands by Brazil and India, the poor countries will be left with nothing, even though their economies are so small that they pose little threat to markets in the wealthy nations. The question is, could they persuade Brazil and India to lower their expectations? They may not have to. Mandelson has been pushing an "aid for trade" package that would require all of the WTO's industrialized members - which were not named specifically - to open their markets to the poorest countries' exports. The proposal would not, however, eliminate the kind of non-tariff barriers that keep many exports out of the EU.

These trade talks have brought with them thousands of protesters. Some are hard core anarchists, the kind that created much controversy in Seattle in 1999. Some are vocal advocates for their own livelihoods that appear at risk. Others are trade unionists concerned their interests, such as job security, are not represented.
Washington Post
Thousands of demonstrators from more than a dozen countries marched through Hong Kong on Tuesday, some scuffling with police and others diving into the city's harbor in protest, as a World Trade Organization meeting opened with wealthy and developing nations deadlocked in talks over a global trade accord. Several dozen protesters, most of them South Korean farmers angered by proposals to lower agricultural tariffs they said protect their livelihoods, threw eggs and plastic bottles at police restricting access to the meeting site, then struck them with bamboo sticks in a failed attempt to break through.


Hong Kong police (R) clash with protesters during a demonstration against the World Trade Organization (WTO) December 13, 2005 in Hong Kong. Hong Kong riot police used pepper foam to repel several dozen protesters who tried to gain access to the site of the WTO ministerial talks on the first day of the WTO conference being held in the Chinese territory. About a hundred other Korean activists jumped into the cold waters of Victoria Harbor wearing life preservers and tried to swim to the convention center but were cut off by police patrol boats. Several activists were taken to hospitals and one was reported in serious condition.


But on the opening day of the WTO's biennial ministerial meeting, meant to lay the groundwork for a global treaty by the end of 2006 that would cut trade barriers, police prevented the kind of violence that disrupted the 1999 meeting in Seattle and the 2003 event in Cancun, Mexico.

The other new major player in world trade and champion of "outsourcing", India, is pressing for it's own interests and sounding like they are willing to negotiate an exchange of concessions.
International Herald Tribune
India, among the pioneers of outsourcing, is pressing wealthy countries to make a commitment not to enact legislation that would prohibit offshore services like call centers and software development. It is also urging them to make it easier for outsourcing companies to send employees to the West on temporary visits to manage customer relations and to sell, install, maintain and service their products. "Nobody is going to give you work to design software if they know you can't even get a visa to come install it," Kamal Nath, India's commerce minister and its principal trade negotiator, said in a telephone conversation.


As in agriculture, negotiations on services before the Hong Kong meeting have dashed hopes of a major agreement. In exchange for easing restraints on outsourcing, rich countries want India to open more widely to foreign investment, particularly in retailing and banking - two sectors jealously protected by the trade unions allied to India's coalition government. But Nath went further than he had previously gone in hinting at a possible deal.


"They are not off the table," he said, referring to retailing and banking. "It needs to be negotiated. I cannot spell out my negotiation. But I'm flexible on this, provided I get some movement on Mode 1 and Mode 4," the bureaucratic terms for outsourcing regulations.

Meanwhile, the other apparently former communist country is working on it's membership agreements.
RIA Novosti
Russia hopes to complete bilateral talks on accession to the World Trade Organization with two or three more countries and sign final agreements with four or five at the sixth ministerial conference in Hong Kong, an economy ministry official said Wednesday. Maxim Medvedkov, head of the trade relations department of the Economic Development and Trade Ministry, told journalists that Russia still had not completed talks with the U.S., Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Uruguay, Costa Rica or Colombia. Bilateral talks have been concluded but final agreements remain to be signed with Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, Moldova, Honduras and Panama.

A most unlikely country to open trade with Israel, Saudi Arabia is eagerly planning to build it's trading ties with the world, including as it is required, with Israel.
BBC
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has approved Saudi Arabia's application for membership after 12 years of talks. The world's largest oil exporter will become the 149th member of the WTO in 30 days' time. The country will need to adopt the entire body of WTO legislation, a process that involves liberalization of currently restricted sectors. Saudi Arabia must open its long protected economy to the outside world, including fellow WTO member Israel. The accession will enhance the business environment in Saudi Arabia by adding more transparency and predictability, says Hashim Yamani, Commerce and Industry minister for Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's participation in the Arab League boycott of Israel will thus need to be reviewed.

Yet, with all the hoopla, there is little hope for a major break through. In fact, the focus of the conference may be only about opening trade restrictions for the poor nations of the world. That will not come without controversy.
New York Times
Pascal Lamy, director general of the World Trade Organization, and John Tsang, Hong Kong's trade minister and chairman of the W.T.O. ministerial conference here, have called with increasing emphasis in the last few days for a detailed agreement eliminating all duties and quotas on the exports of at least 32 of the world's poor countries. The move to focus on trade by the poor is drawing support from the European Union and Japan, as well as from some of the more economically viable developing nations. It comes as efforts for a deal on agricultural subsidies have stumbled.


But this emphasis on poor countries poses potential difficulties for the Bush administration, which has raised concerns while accepting that some kind of agreement is needed on trade relations with the poorest among third world economies. The administration faces pressure from Southern states like North Carolina on cotton, particularly garments. While the United States allows duty-free, quota-free imports of garments from many poor countries in Latin America and Africa, industry groups in textile-producing states and their political allies in Congress oppose the elimination of duties on garments from Bangladesh, a poor nation that is one of the world's largest exporters of clothing.


Industry groups and some Southern politicians also oppose deep cuts in cotton subsidies that help American farmers compete with producers in the poorest sub-Saharan countries, like Mali and Chad, though some limited cuts have been made. The United States did support an initial agreement this past Tuesday to allow poor nations greater access to generic drugs in health crises. But American officials have been calling for a stronger focus here on the W.T.O.'s longer-term goal of removing barriers to global farm trade, and not just discussions on trade with poor countries.


The agriculture negotiations have stalled, largely because of a reluctance by the European Union to accept steep cuts in domestic subsidies.

What does the EU want for steep cuts in domestic subsidies?
New York Times
A Doha deal will work only if everyone benefits. If we are to open our agricultural markets further, our companies need to find new opportunities to invest and trade in other markets and in other economic areas - including real market opening in industrial goods and services in rapidly growing countries. Those countries need cheaper, more competitive goods and services, too, for their own development. Brazil, for example, should offer to reduce import tariffs on industrial goods. Brazil should also offer greater access to foreign providers of services and help establish a more fruitful process for international negotiations on services in the future. India should improve the tariff reductions it is offering on industrial goods. Both Brazil and India should recognize that there are differences between the needs of developing countries: they should consider what they can do to improve trading conditions for the poorest, for example, by themselves moving toward duty- and quota-free access.


The United States also needs to improve its agricultural proposal by reducing domestic subsidies and food aid programs that distort trade. It needs to improve its offer of market access for providers of services. We would be delighted if Rob Portman, the United States trade representative, followed Europe's example by granting duty- and quota-free access for imports from least developed countries, and lowering America's cotton subsidies. Europe could also use American support as we seek to stem the progressive abuse of anti-dumping suits by tightening W.T.O. rules.


If our W.T.O. partners take serious steps in these areas, they might have the credibility to ask Europe to revisit its agricultural policies. Until then, Europe will stand fast in the belief that at this moment it is not another move by the European Union that is needed to ensure the success of the Doha Round.


Peter Mandelson is the European Union's trade commissioner.

So major agreements may not happen, and smaller regional agreements may become the movement of the future. The US is working on some, but Bush has a way of throwing his weight around, trying to bully his way towards a favorable agreement. Meanwhile, EU and our neighbors to the south have been more effective in making these agreements.
BBC
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will now be able to join in trade negotiations with leaders from Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. Chavez has long talked of following the dream of South America's liberator Simon Bolivar to create a united continent. But some fear the left-winger could cause as much discord as unity. "I give a hearty welcome to a friend," said Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. "Mercosur continues to be an engine for economic integration, even more important for our countries."


Some business leaders in Brazil and Argentina are worried that Mr Chavez's anti-American and anti-free trade rhetoric could jeopardize trade talks with the US and Europe. However, there is a plus side, says the BBC's Tom Gibb in Sao Paulo. Mercosur has clauses about democracy, and those who mistrust the authoritarian leanings of Mr Chavez would like him to sign up to these, our reporter adds. In the meantime, the South American countries are keen to take up offers of cheap Venezuelan oil.

But is it really true that regional agreements hurt the future of the poor countries? There is a different view.
UNDERNEWS
Rodrik doesn't buy the argument that the key to rapid development for poor countries is their willingness to liberalize trade. Nor, for that matter, does he think boosting aid makes much difference either. Looking around the world, he looks in vain for the success stories of three decades of neo-liberal orthodoxy: nations that have really made it after taking the advice - willingly or not - of the IMF and the World Bank.


Rather, the countries that have achieved rapid economic take-off in the past 50 years have done so as a result of policies tailored to their own domestic needs. Vietnam shows that what you do at home is far more important than access to foreign markets. There is little evidence that trade barriers are an impediment to growth for those countries following the right domestic policies.

No comments: