UK Guardian supplement on international trade

[T_i_B]

Today's Guardian comes with a trade supplement which I will link to below

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/cancun/0,13815,1018998,00.html

here are some of the best bits IMHO. I will start off with an article by Kofi Annan no less.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/article/0,2763,1035796,00.html

The decisions taken by the trade ministers in Cancun could make the difference between opportunity and poverty, perhaps even between life and death, for millions of people in poor countries. Why? Because at last they will decide whether those countries will or will not be given a real chance to trade their way out of poverty.
There are many issues in the talks, but two are especially crucial. One is the question of intellectual property as it affects health in developing countries. Aids, malaria, TB and other diseases are reversing decades of development gains and lowering life expectancies. Countries that cannot produce cheap generic drugs must be given the right to import them from nations that can.

This is a humanitarian issue. Indeed, it is a moral imperative. The other issue is much broader, and economically decisive for many developing countries: the trade in agricultural products. Farmers in poor countries, especially in Africa, must be given a fair chance to compete, both in world markets and at home. At present, poor countries are under pressure from rich countries to liberalise their markets. Yet they find that many of their products are excluded from rich countries' markets by protective tariffs and quotas. That is not fair.

Even less fair is the competition they face from heavily subsidised producers in those same rich countries. These subsidies push prices down, driving the farmers in poor countries out of business. In west Africa, for instance, some of the poorest countries in the world are losing more through depressed cotton prices than they receive in aid or debt relief. Even in the rich countries, poor farmers benefit least. Most of the subsidies go to the biggest farms and the largest producers. For humanity's sake, these subsidies must be phased out as fast as possible.

Now another bit explaining the power of trade

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/article/0,2763,1035795,00.html

Now for Pascal Lamy, commissioner for Trade at the European Commission to explain the benefits of globalization

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/article/0,2763,1035804,00.html

The WTO, often portrayed as the vanguard of untrammelled globalisation, is quite the opposite: it provides a framework in which member countries negotiate how to regulate trade and investment, and ensures the respect of the rules agreed by common accord.

If anything, the WTO helps us move from a Hobbesian world of lawlessness, into a more Kantian world - perhaps not exactly of perpetual peace, but at least one where trade relations are subject to the rule of law.

In a way, the WTO is the UN for trade, with the crucial difference that all countries have a seat in its Security Council. That is the best bulwark against unilateralism.

The rules are far from perfect, I admit. But I do not agree that they are intrinsically unfair to poor countries. The Uruguay round was not a bum deal for the developing world: since its conclusion, EU imports from developing countries have doubled, for instance. In agriculture, they have grown by 5% annually, and we are already the world's largest importer of agricultural products from developing countries. In textiles, EU imports from developing countries have soared by 60% since 1995. But more needs to be done.

And last but not least, it would be rude of me not to post the George Monbiot article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/article/0,2763,1036422,00.html

Of course there is plenty more for you lot to pull out. Make of all this what you will.

[T_i_B]

1. Kick for anyone with an interest in globalization

I know there is a lot of stuff here, but it is highly relevant for anyone interested in globalization.

Article on agricultural subsidies (and the gross ineqialities that result from rich world protectionism)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/article/0,2763,1036414,00.html

Article about intellectual property rights

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/article/0,2763,1036365,00.html

And also, Thom Yorke of Radiohead

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/article/0,2763,1035805,00.html

:kick:

[IrateCitizen]

2. I'll entertain your request for feedback, TiB!

I just finished reading the entire package this morning on the train. My impressions may surprise you.

First off, the Pascal Lamy (EU Trade Minister) piece is pure rubbish, completely devoid of any content. It is little more than a mindless repetition of the same tired cliches about trade, and does nothing to address the real problems and inequities with the system as it is. I found it interesting that one of the articles mentioned his complete absence from some of the lead-up talks, despite his grand rhetoric on the need to address the problems of the world's poor.

Now, some of my impressions may surprise you. My favorite (or is it favourite ;-)) articles were the one about cotton farmers in West Texas and West Africa, along with the commentary by Herman Daly (Logic that Leads to a Plundered World). The one about cotton farmers highlighted the drain that farm subsidies are on the economy of host countries, along with keeping farmers in developing nations down. The latter commentary did the best job of all of the articles (including Monbiot's) of pointing out many of the gross inequities that are currently taking place, while still emphasizing the need to maintain the framework.

Perhaps the best thing I took away from these articles was a better understanding of some of the details of the global trade system, and specific areas that are leveraged for advantage by rich nations. One of the things Daly talks about is the need for "regulated trade", because what business and the EU and US and Canadian trade ministers are pushing for is "unregulated trade", and it is a system designed only to reinforce inequities rather than address them.

Of course, I'm just touching the tip of the iceberg here. But I think you and I may end up agreeing on more than we used to, even if we still do maintain different perspectives on the issue. :evilgrin:

Thanks for posting the articles, they are a dearth of knowledge, and I hope more people on these boards read them.

Peace,
IC

[T_i_B]

3. Pascal Lamy.

Mush of what Lamy say in his article may be correct IMHO, but the problem is that his actions do not nessessarily meet up to the high standards of his rhetoric. It is Lamy who seems to be taking a large share of the blame for the faliure of the trade talks at Cacun.

Mind you, Lamy is essentially just doing the bidding of the EU and its member governments who, together with the agicultural lobby have conspired to give us the loathesome European C.A.P.

Mind you, something I will disagree with you on is this

what business and the EU and US and Canadian trade ministers are pushing for is "unregulated trade", and it is a system designed only to reinforce inequities rather than address them.

What the likes of the EU are pushing for is a actually rules based multilateral trade system. Now The US may be very fond of bilateral trade deals at present so I don't know if you can quite lump them in this group but bilateral trade deals have their own problems.

Multilateral trade agreements are IMHO the best way forward, the thing is, many do consider them to be stacked in favour of rich nations. However, poor nations have a much bigger say in multilateral WTO negociations than in bilateral trade deals where the rich countries actually have a much greater ability to dictate the terms. The fact the the WTO does give poor countries a greater say as can be seen from the G21 countries ganging together to put their own case collectivly at Cancun, something they would not be able to do as successfully without an organization such as the WTO in place to oversee global trade.

[Maple]

4. Ahh at last some common sense on this issue

A cornucopia of interesting factual articles that I am still working my way thru!

I am delighted to see that there are many rational, fair-minded people in the world who understand the situation as it exists...and the solutions it will take...and don't just cover them up with slogans and unthinking knee-jerk ideology.

I will be back to comment as soon as I finish digesting this far more relevant body of opinion!

[IrateCitizen]

5. That is what I was trying to engage you on in the other thread, Maple!

I am delighted to see that there are many rational, fair-minded people in the world who understand the situation as it exists...and the solutions it will take...and don't just cover them up with slogans and unthinking knee-jerk ideology.

This is the kind of engagement I was trying to get from you on the other thread in GDF! Instead, I got in return... slogans and unthinking knee-jerk ideology.

I guess if it takes the Guardian package -- which I read in its entirety early last week and already posted a short comment on -- to get you to discuss this issue in depth, then it's better late than never. :shrug:

[Maple]

6. Well after having a chance

to read most of these articles....work always intervenes :D .... I was pleased to discover... with the exception of Lamy who pretty much upholds the party line...that we have at last gotten beyond the stage of the simple-minded 'eliminate the WTO' or 'we are doing enough' and are taking the whole thing more seriously.

Perhaps it's finally getting across to people that by damaging or denouncing the only multi-lateral body there is for trade, we are driving poor countries into one-sided bilateral deals in which they get the worst of it.

Of course there are problems on both ends of this latest hurdle, but if the rich countries don't make moves to let others on board, we will all lose out...and continue with the hand-outs that just keep people at bare sustenance level. And most times, not even that.

Brazil, China and India got together...fantastic!... as those 3 countries alone represent half the world's population. And if Africa is starting to speak with one voice and join the larger chorus...even better.

It's more than time for the western world to eliminate the high-flying rhetoric and start dealing with the actual situation...and from the top of the deck instead of the bottom.

Now if we could just educate the middle-class western protesters who have no idea what the WTO is, or does, so they stop with their nonsense and allow the countries involved to meet in peace and resolve these matters, it would improve things greatly.