WTO head urges removal of trade barriers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/article/0,2763,1039316,00.html

The head of the World Trade Organisation today appealed to its members to agree to remove barriers to trade as the Cancun summit opened amid protests in the meeting hall. Addressing the delegates from 146 countries, Supachai Panitchpakdi, the director-general of the WTO, said: "There comes a time when rhetoric has to be backed by action."

Some 4,700 delegates from the WTO's 146 member states were meeting for five days to try to break the deadlock in the current round of trade liberalisation negotiations as rich and poor nations face off over agricultural subsidies and foreign investment and competition rules.

Mr Panitchpakdi has argued that a successful conclusion of the current trade talks was a key to reviving the world economy. "Failure is not an option," he said. "It would send a very damaging signal around the world about prospects for economic recovery and would result in more hardship for workers around the globe, particularly in poorer countries."

But the prospects for agreement, particularly on agriculture, look grim. As expected the absence of agreement on agriculture could be a deal-breaker at Cancun. Instead of rolling over as in previous trade negotiations, the developing countries are sticking to their demand that rich countries start scrapping their huge agricultural subsidies.

While the rich ones keep them up, except for the goods they want to let in. Uh-huh. Maybe that dog will stop hunting at last.

From the article...

A World Bank report released earlier this month said that a trade deal that addressed the concerns of developing nations could spur global growth and reduce poverty by as much as 144 million people by 2015, Nicholas Stern, World Bank chief economist, put the onus on the rich countries to take the lead in negotiating a fair outcome to the Cancun negotiations.

"They are the dominant players and account for two-thirds of the global market," Mr Stern said. "They could show leadership by reducing agricultural protection, cutting high tariffs, and ensuring that the poorest countries have access to affordable medicines on the same terms as bigger developing countries."

In both the pro and anti globalization camps people are gradually starting to notice cartain double standards in the present rules and that is exactly why it is agriculture that is the big thing in the globalization debate at present.

While we rich companies maintain our agricultural subsidies!

I'm with TiB on this one (I can't believe I'm saying that!) in that both camps are really noticing the doublespeak that is taking place with the US, EU, Canada (and their puppeteers in big business).

Well, those of us who have been largely critical of the WTO have seen it for quite some time.... :evilgrin:

and people of all political stripes can see the problems that agricultural subsidies cause. This is very much an up and coming issue at the moment.

I found an interesting article in the Torygraph today by Boris Johnson, a right winger, tory MP, you know the sort. There is a fair bit of right wingery here but there is also bits in this article like this. Make of this what you will.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/09/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/09/11/ixopinion.html

Under George W Bush's 2002 Farm Bill, which has now come into effect, American taxpayers' subsidies to their farmers are to be increased by $135 billion over the next two years. It used to be that America was the country that championed subsidy reduction.

America led the calls for freedom. America is now the single worst offender in the world, subsidising her farmers more per head even than the Europeans, and no, my friends, my apathetic friends, there is no global agreement on the critical issue of free trade.

If you find it hard to get worked up about political issues, try this. Half the world's population - three billion people - live on less than $2 a day. Most of those poor people are either farmers, or in some other way dependent on the rural economy.

You do not have to swallow the fair trade agenda to think it infamous that Ugandan cotton growers are being wiped out by the $2 billion subsidy that America gives to her domestic producers.

Noam Chomsky, in his address, said: "There is also a conference of the World Economic Forum going on right now, in Davos. Here in Porto Alegre, the mood is hopeful, vigorous, exciting. In Davos, the New York Times tells us, `the mood has darkened'. For the `movers and shakers', it is not `global party time' any more. In fact, the founder of the Forum has conceded defeat: `The power of corporations has completely disappeared,' he said. So we have won. There is nothing left for us to do but pick up the pieces - not only to talk about a vision of the future that is just and humane, but to move on to create it. Of course, we should not let the praise go to our heads. There are still a few difficulties ahead."