Stiglitz on Trade Talks
The Economic Times Thursday, July 22, 2004 Let the pleasant trade winds blow JOSEPH E STIGLITZ In the year since the breakdown of the trade talks in Cancun, sentiment has increasingly grown in the developing world that no agreement is better than a bad agreement. But what would a good agreement look like? The British Commonwealth recently posed this question to me and the Initiative for Policy Dialogue, an international network of economists committed to helping developing countries. Our first message was that the current round of trade negotiations, especially as it has evolved, does not deserve even to be called a development round. Well before the riots that marked the World Trade Organization talks in Seattle in 1999, I called for a true "development round" of trade talks to redress the inequities of previous rounds. The advanced countries, with their dominant corporate and financial interests, had set the agenda for those negotiations. Whether or not developing countries benefited was of little concern. Indeed, in the last round of trade negotiations, the Uruguay Round, the world's poorest region, sub-Saharan Africa, was actually made worse off. Our second message was optimistic: if the agenda of the current round is reoriented towards development, and if assistance is provided to manage implementation and adjustment costs, developing countries can gain much. We analysed which reforms in the international trade regime would most benefit those in the developing world, and we presented an alternative agenda based on our findings. The results were perhaps obvious: more people live from agriculture in the developing world than from manufacturing, so agricultural liberalisation must be high on the agenda. But genuinely beneficial agricultural reform would need to go further than merely transforming export subsidies into other types of subsidies, because many supposedly non-distorting subsidies lead to more output, which hurts producers in developing countries by lowering prices. Trade reforms must be sensitive to the effects on developing countries, many of which are net importers of subsidised agricultural commodities. But some subsidies, like cotton subsidies in the United States, are rightly emblematic of America's bad faith. Eliminating this subsidy would help 10 million poor cotton farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. American taxpayers would also benefit. The only losers would be the 25,000 rich farmers who currently divvy up $3-4 billion in government hand-outs each year. Developing countries also need access for the unskilled labour-intensive services in which they have a comparative advantage. These were off the agenda in earlier trade rounds, as the US pushed for liberalisation of financial services - thus serving its own comparative advantage. Today, unskilled services remain off the agenda. Developing countries' gains from capital market liberalisation have been widely noted (although recent studies raise some doubts about these benefits). Nevertheless, the global gains from allowing freer flows of unskilled labour (even temporarily), let alone the benefits to developing countries, far outweigh the benefits from capital market liberalisation. But, as I said, this issue is not on the agenda. The trade talks in Cancun raised new subjects - the so-called Singapore issues. But even a cursory look at these items reveals that they primarily reflect the interests of developed countries. Indeed, poor countries' development would arguably have been set back if they had acquiesced in some of the demands. Consider the issue of government procurement. The single largest area of US government procurement is defence, a sector in which even the European Union has found it difficult to make inroads. Are developing countries really targeting this area in the next few years? Clearly, this issue is not high on their agenda. Competition is another example. Without competition, lowering tariffs may merely be reflected in higher profit margins for a monopoly importer. The most important competition issue for developing countries, however, is reform of dumping duties. The US and EU keep out products from developing countries, alleging that they charge less than the cost of production. But why would anyone knowingly sell at a loss? This could only be rational if the seller can hope to establish a monopoly position and extract large profits in the future. But few developing countries are in a position to establish such monopoly positions, so the dumping charges are mostly bogus. As tariff barriers have come down, the unfair "fair trade" laws are increasingly being used as America's favoured protectionist tool. Treating foreign and domestic firms the same with respect to competitive practices would stop these abuses. This, too, should be a high priority of a true development round. The breakdown of the Cancun talks may yet provide an opportunity for deeper
trade talks: resucitating the patient
[New York Times] January 12, 2004 Acting Conciliatory, U.S. Seeks to Revive Global Trade Talks By ELIZABETH BECKER WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 - Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, sent letters to more than 140 countries today saying he hopes to push for new global trade talks this year. Adopting a conciliatory tone, Mr. Zoellick said he would visit four critical countries next month to promote the reconvening of a top-level trade meeting this year. He said he hoped to invigorate the global trade agenda for developing nations that has languished since the World Trade Organization talks fell apart in Cancún, Mexico, last year, according to a summary of the letter released by his office. "Outreach, listening is an important part of this," said Richard Mills, the spokesman for Mr. Zoellick. After the collapse of the earlier talks, Mr. Zoellick had accused several developing nations of being "won't do" nations that were good at making demands but poor at crafting compromises. Now, Mr. Zoellick said he wants to promote a "common sense" approach to trade, according to a statement released by his office, that would focus on agriculture, goods and services. But he offered few new concessions by the administration. Instead, Mr. Zoellick suggested compromises that would require that Europe make most of the concessions, a big step away from the compromise he reached with Europe last year. For instance, in his letter Mr. Zoellick said that the World Trade Organization needs to eliminate all agricultural export subsidies by a certain date, a concession that hits Europe rather than the United States. European officials said today that they "very much welcome the engagement from the U.S. to re-inject life into the W.T.O. talks." But Anthony Gooch, the spokesman for the European Union in Washington, said that to focus on European export subsidies without considering the United States export credits for agriculture or the distortions of the Canadian wheat board was unfair. "It may look politically correct," Mr. Gooch said, "but this does not necessarily make it the necessary precondition." The United States would offer its original proposal, released in 2002, that calls for a global reduction of farm subsidies that would largely leave in tact Washington's annual $19 billion in farm subsidies. The new letter was first reported in The Financial Times of London today. Through a spokesman, Mr. Zoellick said he would not speak directly to other news media about his new initiative. Mr. Zoellick is facing criticism that his trading strategy was faltering. He missed the deadlines for bilateral trade agreements with Australia and Morocco last month. He scaled back his ambitions for a free trade area for the Americas, although President Bush will attempt to revive that discussion in talks this week in Mexico at the Summit of the Americas. And in the trade agreement with four Central American countries, his one new first trade pact of the year, Mr. Zoellick fell short of his goal of including Costa Rica, the richest nation of the group of five nations. "Bob Zoellick has no momentum and he may be backsliding," said C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics in Washington. Some 20 developing countries - including China, Brazil and South Africa - formed a new trading group at the Cancún talks solely to pressure the United States, Europe and Japan to reduce or eliminate their agriculture subsidies estimated at $300 billion a year. They said the unwillingness of wealthy countries to address the developing world's concerns about agricultural trade was the real stumbling block. Of special concern was the $12.9 billion the United States pays in subsidies to farmers to grow cotton and to American textile companies to buy that cotton. The W.T.O. allowed several West African nations to make a proposal at Cancún that the United States and other nations reduce or eliminate those subsidies. The African nations said the subsidies distorted trade and was unfairly destroying the livelihood of some of the world's poorest farmers. In his letter, Mr. Zoellick makes no concessions on cotton but does say he will discuss the issue. Brazil has mounted a legal challenge to America's cotton subsidies in the first case that the W.T.O. has accepted on agricultural subsidies. A preliminary decision is expected this spring and could open the door to more cases against rich-nation farm subsidies. "There is no doubt that the Brazil case is giving the administration serious heartburn because for the first time subsidies are being litigated, not just debated and endlessly negotiated," said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, which has operates a data base about the subsidies. Mr. Mills, Mr. Zoellick's spokesman, said the letter was meant to dispel the notion that global trade talks would be stuck during this election year.
trade talks stalemate
WTO admits stalemate has scuppered relaunch of Cancún trade talks Negotiators still struggle to find compromise Larry Elliott Tuesday December 16, 2003 The Guardian A formal relaunch of the stalled global trade talks was deferred for at least two months yesterday after the World Trade Organisation admitted that deep differences between rich and poor countries among its 146 members had yet to be settled. Hopes were fading last night that the WTO would be able to complete the round of liberalisation talks on schedule on January 1 2005 as the stalemate continued, even though officials in Geneva remained optimistic that rapid progress in the first six months of next year could allow the deadline to be met. Three months after negotiations broke down in chaos after a week of acrimonious discussion in Cancún, Mexico, the WTO finally admitted that they were not able to set a new timetable at yesterday's meeting. The WTO said last night there were signs that the parties were coming closer together following divisions on a range of issues, but that there was still not enough common ground. "Our collective aim for today, as instructed by ministers at Cancún, was to arrive at a point where the negotiations can resume full momentum," WTO director-general Supachai Panitchpakdi told trade envoys. "We are not yet at this point but we should not be disheartened." Both Mr Supachai, who has held a series of meetings with trade ministers, and the president of the WTO's executive general council, ambassador Carlos Pérez del Castillo of Uruguay, who has been acting as mediator in Geneva, said there were some signs that the Cancún deadlock could be broken. Among the issues causing most controversy are the subsidies paid to farmers in rich developed countries, the lack of access to western mar kets for poor cotton producers in West Africa, and demands from the European Union that the WTO talks should include four new issues - investment, competition, government procurement and rules governing trade. With Washington preoccupied by the presidential elections next year and the European Union convulsed by a row between free traders and protectionists, WTO officials had privately ruled out several weeks ago any possibility of an immediate full scale resumption of the negotiations launched in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001. Even so, the WTO said it believed members could start to talk in February about specific issues using a compromise text put forward in Cancún by Mexican foreign minister Luis Ernesto Derbez and which had been spurned at the time by developing countries. "We are not talking about breakthroughs, but the mood has improved," said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell. "Today's announcement, while not a surprise, is a huge disappointment to millions of poor people that could benefit from trade reform," said Michael Bailey, senior policy adviser at Oxfam. "Since talks collapsed in Cancún, developing countries have shown their willingness to get back to the negotiating table. It is rich country stubbornness that has caused today's stalemate. There was bound to be a period of re-assessment but the time has come to put an end to the hand-wringing and finger pointing and revive genuine negotiations."
biotech trade talks
[NYTimes] June 20, 2003 Talks Collapse on U.S. Efforts to Open Europe to Biotech Food By DAVID LEONHARDT WASHINGTON, June 19 - Talks between the United States and the European Union over opening up Europe to genetically modified foods broke down in Geneva today, the Bush administration announced, heightening trans-Atlantic tensions. American officials said they would soon request that the World Trade Organization convene a panel to hear their case, in an effort to end a ban that farm groups say is depriving agricultural businesses of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The Bush administration called Europe's policy illegal, saying that scientific research had shown genetically altered crops to be safe. The European Union "denies choices to European consumers," Richard Mills, a spokesman for the United States trade representative, Robert Zoellick, said in a statement today. European officials said the long-term effects of altered food remained uncertain. They said they were disappointed by the administration's publicizing of the dispute. The food dispute is one of a handful of trade fights between the United States and Europe and comes as tensions linger over the war in Iraq, which many European countries opposed. Trade officials also continue to haggle over steel tariffs imposed by the Bush administration last year, farm subsidies on both sides of the Atlantic, and an American law that reduces taxes for companies with overseas operations, among other issues. "There have never been more of these litigations than there are right now," Robert E. Lighthizer, a trade lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in Washington, said of the disputes. He said the relationship was "extremely contentious." American and European officials met in Geneva today for a round of negotiations, known as a consultation, after the United States filed suit at the W.T.O. over the issue last month. Today's announcement means that the trade organization will soon begin selecting a panel of judges to hear the case, although a decision is likely to take months. Genetically modified food - which can grow more quickly than traditional crops and can be resistant to insects - has caused scant controversy in the United States, where people eat it every day. Almost 40 percent of all corn planted in this country in genetically modified. In Europe, however, the environmental movement is more powerful, and a series of food problems, including mad cow disease, have made people far more skeptical of assurances of safety from governments and businesses. Some food packages there bear the label "GM free," and the initials are well enough known to be used regularly in headlines in British newspapers. The European Commission has permitted the use of some genetically modified foods, like soybeans, in the last decade, but has effectively placed a moratorium on most new products. The Bush administration and agricultural businesses view the policy as simple protectionism because American companies, which dominate the biotechnology industry,would benefit most from lifting the ban. Without it, American companies would export about $300 billion more in corn each year than they do now, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. Scientific research has generally shown that genetically modified foods do not cause health problems. "Countries shouldn't be able to erect barriers for nonscientific reasons," Don Lipton, a spokesman for the farm federation, said. "That's a very important principle in international trade." In a speech last month, President Bush escalated the dispute by saying that Europe's policy was undermining efforts to fight hunger in Africa. African nations, fearing their products would be shunned by Europe, are avoiding developing genetically modified food that might help feed the continent, he said. "European governments should join, not hinder, the great cause of ending hunger in Africa," he said in the speech. European diplomats reacted angrily to Mr. Bush's comments, saying that their health concerns were serious and noting that European nations spend a greater part of their budget on foreign aid than the United States. European officials have also said that they are surprised that the United States has highlighted the dispute recently. This summer, the European Parliament is scheduled to consider a measure that would establish strict labeling rules for genetically modified products, which could allow more of them to be sold. Europe's resistance to modified crops received a political lift last week when a global treaty restricting them was approved. Although it is not clear what effect the treaty, known as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, will have on the trade dispute, it is likely to make it easier for countries to restrict importing the crops, trade experts say. The United States, worried about the treaty's impact on American exporters, agreed only reluctantly to support it when it was negotiated in
Re: derailing trade talks
I for one am irritated with the new "correct line" on trade in agricultural goods: agricultural subsidies are bad, and free trade is the solution for impoverished farmers in the third world. (1) If we want to reverse the continuing transformation of agriculture into unsustainable and de-cultured exploitation of nature, there is no alternative to large-scale subsidies. There are legitimate questions, of course, in how the subsidies should be administered. (2) Export-led development is no more the answer for third world agriculture than it is for third-world industry. Even worse, it erases opportunities for subsistence at a time when extreme poverty is ubiquitous. (3) What empirical research there is suggests that, even in narrowly-specified market terms, there is a very small gain to be had to third world farmers from free trade in agriculture. Let's work to build a vibrant, sustainable rural culture in our own countries, and healthy domestic markets and egalitarian access to resources in the third world (and vice versa). Peter Ian Murray wrote: Short takes a tilt at CAP EU subsidies will wreck trade talks and drive up poverty, says development secretary Larry Elliott, economics editor Tuesday November 19, 2002 The Guardian Clare Short, the international development secretary, will today attack the common agricultural policy with a warning to the European Union that failure to cut huge farming subsidies will deepen poverty in developing countries by wrecking global trade talks. Her intervention is a clear sign of Britain's belief that last month's deal between Germany and France to ring-fence spending on the CAP for the next 10 years will harm poor countries. She will say that resistance to measures that would prevent over-production and the dumping of excess crops on world markets will "destroy" the chances of trade liberalisation talks succeeding. She will urge today's meeting of the EU general affairs and external relations council in Brussels, which is finalising Europe's policy on trade and development, to join opposition to production subsidies that lead to goods being sold on world markets at prices lower than they cost to produce. The World Trade Organisation launched the current round of talks in Doha last No vember, but progress has so far been stymied by the failure of the West to make good promises on agricultural reform. Pressure from seven of the EU's 15 member states - France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria and Ireland - has resulted in any mention of CAP reform being omitted from the draft to be discussed by ministers today. Ms Short will tell the meeting that any money Europe spends on agriculture must be diverted into support for rural communities rather than be used to finance over-production. "We must be committed to reform of the CAP to deliver on the Doha measures. Failure to do so would cause fatal damage to the prospects of Doha succeeding", she said last night. Developing countries had only signed up for a new round of talks in Doha a year ago because they had won assurances that the EU and the US would take steps to scale back subsidies for farmers. "Developing countries made it clear that there would be no trade round unless they made gains. That's why the promises were made. Now the European Union has to deliver." Ms Short said that unless the EU agreed to "disconnect pro duction from subsidies, it will be destroying Doha. We had an unprecedented consensus a year ago when the talks were launched. "If the Doha round goes sour it will break that up, it will endanger the WTO and it will lead to the further marginalisation of poor countries." Her intervention in the increasingly bitter row over the future of the CAP comes as the chancellor, Gordon Brown, plans to call on the West to support a new deal for Africa. He will spend the next few months seeking support among the G7 industrial nations for a four-part package, which would include better access to rich western markets and a doubling of aid to $100bn (£63bn) a year in return for economic stability and proposals by poor countries to root out corruption. Britain was furious at last month's deal between France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schröder to maintain spending on the CAP, which costs Europe £25bn a year. Sources said that France's avowed concern about the plight of Africa and Spain's interest in Latin America were at odds with their point-blank refusal to discuss meaningful CAP reform.
derailing trade talks
Short takes a tilt at CAP EU subsidies will wreck trade talks and drive up poverty, says development secretary Larry Elliott, economics editor Tuesday November 19, 2002 The Guardian Clare Short, the international development secretary, will today attack the common agricultural policy with a warning to the European Union that failure to cut huge farming subsidies will deepen poverty in developing countries by wrecking global trade talks. Her intervention is a clear sign of Britain's belief that last month's deal between Germany and France to ring-fence spending on the CAP for the next 10 years will harm poor countries. She will say that resistance to measures that would prevent over-production and the dumping of excess crops on world markets will "destroy" the chances of trade liberalisation talks succeeding. She will urge today's meeting of the EU general affairs and external relations council in Brussels, which is finalising Europe's policy on trade and development, to join opposition to production subsidies that lead to goods being sold on world markets at prices lower than they cost to produce. The World Trade Organisation launched the current round of talks in Doha last No vember, but progress has so far been stymied by the failure of the West to make good promises on agricultural reform. Pressure from seven of the EU's 15 member states - France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria and Ireland - has resulted in any mention of CAP reform being omitted from the draft to be discussed by ministers today. Ms Short will tell the meeting that any money Europe spends on agriculture must be diverted into support for rural communities rather than be used to finance over-production. "We must be committed to reform of the CAP to deliver on the Doha measures. Failure to do so would cause fatal damage to the prospects of Doha succeeding", she said last night. Developing countries had only signed up for a new round of talks in Doha a year ago because they had won assurances that the EU and the US would take steps to scale back subsidies for farmers. "Developing countries made it clear that there would be no trade round unless they made gains. That's why the promises were made. Now the European Union has to deliver." Ms Short said that unless the EU agreed to "disconnect pro duction from subsidies, it will be destroying Doha. We had an unprecedented consensus a year ago when the talks were launched. "If the Doha round goes sour it will break that up, it will endanger the WTO and it will lead to the further marginalisation of poor countries." Her intervention in the increasingly bitter row over the future of the CAP comes as the chancellor, Gordon Brown, plans to call on the West to support a new deal for Africa. He will spend the next few months seeking support among the G7 industrial nations for a four-part package, which would include better access to rich western markets and a doubling of aid to $100bn (£63bn) a year in return for economic stability and proposals by poor countries to root out corruption. Britain was furious at last month's deal between France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schröder to maintain spending on the CAP, which costs Europe £25bn a year. Sources said that France's avowed concern about the plight of Africa and Spain's interest in Latin America were at odds with their point-blank refusal to discuss meaningful CAP reform.
trade talks
No Breakthrough in U.S.-EU Talks By Martin Crutsinger AP Economics Writer Thursday, May 2, 2002; 2:51 PM WASHINGTON -- President Bush and European leaders sought to avoid touching off trans-Atlantic trade wars on Thursday but failed to produce a breakthrough on steel or other disputes. "We agreed that discussions should continue," said European Commission President Romano Prodi. Both Bush and the European leaders stressed that they would intensify their efforts to find solutions for various contentious trade issues, including steel and a $4 billion U.S. tax break that the World Trade Organization has ruled as illegal. On the tax break for exporters, Bush said he had given the EU officials assurances that "I will work with our Congress to fully comply with the WTO decision." The administration is hoping that it can demonstrate enough good-faith efforts that it will be able to avoid the imposition of penalty tariffs on U.S. exports to Europe in what is the largest trade case the United States has lost before the WTO. The WTO is scheduled to rule next month on the level of those tariffs. The EU is seeking to impose 100 percent duties on $4 billion of U.S. exports but the administration has contended that the level should be around $1 billion. Bush's discussions with the European delegation led by Prodi and Spanish Prime Miister Jose Maria Aznar also covered foreign policy issues, with both sides pledging continued cooperation in the fight against global terrorism. They also explored a common approach to the Middle East, endorsing recent U.S. efforts to restore peace between Israel and the Palestinians. On the most contentious trade issue, a U.S. decision in March to impose 30 percent tariffs on various categories of steel imports, the Europeans said they discussed their unhappiness with this decision but pledged to continue negotiations to avert a full-blown trade war. Prodi told a joint news conference that the EU officials had discussed with Bush "the legitimacies of U.S. safeguards which we believe are certainly harming us." The EU has threatened to impose tariffs of its own on $335 million of U.S. exports, targeted to inflict maximum damage on states Republicans are hoping to carry in future elections. Prodi said the two sides agreed on steel that "discussions should continue without any prejudice to our respective rights in the WTO. ... We both intend to play it by the WTO rules." European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick scheduled two extra days of discussions before and after the one-day EU summit to give them more time to search for ways to defuse the various trade disagreements. Congress this week added another element to the trade tensions as the House passed a new farm bill that would boost U.S. agriculture spending by 70 percent, greatly expanding subsidies that farmers receive. The European Union, which is under heavy criticism for its own farm subsidies, attacked the U.S. legislation Thursday, threatening to bring a case against the United States before the World Trade Organization. "The United States is increasing trade-distorting support for (American) farmers that will harm developing countries. This is what we are fiercely opposed to," EU spokesman Gregor Kreuzhuber said in Brussels. Many trade experts fear that the world's two biggest trading powers are on the brink of a tit-for-tat trade war over steel that could seriously harm the world trading system and the global economy's fragile rebound. The $4 billion tax break for thousands of U.S. companies who export was ruled an illegal trade subsidy earlier this year by the WTO. The administration would like for Congress to overhaul U.S. tax law to bring it into compliance with the ruling but is seeking time from the EU to accomplish the task. In the steel dispute, the United States on March 20 began imposing tariffs of up to 30 percent on certain imported steel products, using a section of global trade rules that allows temporary tariffs as a safeguard against import surges. In response, the EU is reviewing a target list of $335 million in American exports to Europe for retaliatory tariffs it may impose as soon as June. The items include citrus from Florida; apples and pears from Washington and Oregon; textiles from North and South Carolina; and steel from Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. All are either presidential battleground states or states where the GOP is fighting to win congressional races this fall. Analysts note that Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, on a recent trip to Europe, said the administration probably would grant a "significant portion" of exemptions being requested so some of the targeted steel imports could avoid the higher tariffs.
47 arrested at EU-US trade talks, Nov 18, 2000
[Ellen Gould is one of Canada's premier anti-WTO activists...] 47 demonstrators arrested at EU-US trade talks in Cincinnati, Nov 18, 2000 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:02:20 -0800 From: Ellen Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Trade protestors hit home I was down in Cincinnati for the counter-conference to the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue, a forum explicitly created for transnational CEOs to give direct input to government negotiators on what they want in trade deals. These meetings have virtually written the text for agreements in the past, with governments reporting on how well they have followed through on the CEOs recommendations. There have been four of these meetings, but Cincinnati was the first where they encountered demonstrators. They probably went to Cincinnati because it is known as a conservative town. They didn't count on a whole series of teach-ins and other activities that built up to quite successful demonstrations and pickets. The police response was truly awful. At a demonstration this Saturday that I attended, police put barricades around the entire public square where the demo was being held and made people agree to being searched before they were able to cross police lines to join the demonstration. The harassment of young people was particularly bad, as they were arrested immediately for doing things as innocuous as jaywalking. At least some of the media got what was happening. As you can see below, the reporter (from the Financial Times!) refers to 47 arrests in largely peaceful demonstrations. The main recommendation CEOs were putting to government officials at the conference was that removing trade barriers now has little to do with tarriffs but all about deregulation. The clarion call for transnationals currently is "approved once, accepted everywhere", which means that no community will be able to set standards higher than ones that are set internationally under the guidance of transnationals. The citizens' actions groups from Ohio did amazing work pulling off the protests to this meeting, making the critical point that governments and transnationals can now expect to face protests wherever they hold these profoundly anti-democratic meetings. Cheers - Ellen Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trade protestors hit home By Edward Alden in Cincinnati Financial Times, November 19 2000 European and US government and business leaders sought at the weekend to revitalise their troubled bilateral trading relationship, but acknowledged that growing public concern over trade liberalisation is stifling further progress. The high-level meeting of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue took place as protesters battled police outside a downtown Cincinnati hotel. The demonstrations were the first in the six-year history of the TABD, but have become a familiar backdrop to international trade meetings since the violent protests at last year's failed World Trade Organisation ministerial in Seattle. More than 100 police in full riot gear, about a dozen of them on horseback, ringed the hotel for the two-day meeting, and 47 protestors were arrested in largely peaceful demonstrations. The protests have clearly rattled the confidence of both political and business leaders, who spent much of the two days debating how better to sell to the public the benefits of freer trade. "Everybody is more risk-averse than a few years ago," said Bertrand Collomb, chief executive of Lafarge and European co-chair of the TABD. "They are being watched by public opinion much more." George David, chief executive of United Technologies and the US co-chair, said "we would be foolish to fail to listen to these demonstrators and their views". In the final communique, the TABD said it must work with non-governmental organisations and citizens' groups "out of the conviction that globalisation is not incompatible with their concerns". "We have a selling job," said Pascal Lamy, the EU's trade commissioner. "We need to find new ways of getting across the benefits of globalisation." The fears over public reaction have already threatened one of the TABD's highest priorities. At the urging of the chief executives, the US and the EU plan a renewed push this week to implement a mutual recognition agreement that would make it easier for companies to meet product safety specifications in both the US and Europe. Businesses say such streamlining could shave more than $1bn in costs on transatlantic trade. US regulatory agencies have been reluctant to allow European facilities to certify products as safe for the US market, bringing the talks to a stalemate. One European official said that the US stance has been heavily influenced by the opponents of further trade lib
[fla-left] [news] Miami urged as site for trade talks (fwd)
forwarded by Michael Hoover > Miami urged as site for trade talks > > By Sue Schultz, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer > Wednesday, April 12, 2000 > > WASHINGTON -- Miami should be the permanent site for > free trade talks in the Americas, Congress voted Tuesday. > > "Locating the (free trade area) talks in Miami makes sense," > said Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr., R-Fort Lauderdale, who > introduced the non-binding bill in the House. A similar bill > by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., was approved by the Senate > in November. > > "The city of Miami, Miami-Dade County, and the state of > Florida have long served as the gateway for trade with the > Caribbean and Latin America," Shaw said. > > In 1998, the trade ministers of 34 countries decided to > create a permanent location for the Free Trade Area of the > Americas to hold all negotiations. Miami is currently one of > the temporary sites that was selected by officials, along with > Panama City, Panama, and Mexico City, Mexico. > > A permanent site will be chosen in 2005. > > "If the FTAA permanently locates in Miami . . . it will join > the ranks of Washington and New York as the only American > cities to host a large international organization," Shaw said.
[PEN-L:2777] LABOUR LEADERS TO TARGET NEW ROUND OF GLOBAL TRADE TALKS (fwd)
Forwarded message: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 13:31:35 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: LABOUR LEADERS TO TARGET NEW ROUND OF GLOBAL TRADE TALKS X-UID: 6925 The Toronto StarJanuary 31, 1999 LABOUR LEADERS TO TARGET NEW ROUND OF GLOBAL TRADE TALKS DAVOS, Switzerland - After helping defeat the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), labour leaders plan to turn their sights next on a proposed new round of global trade talks under the World Trade Organization. This is part of a backlash by labour leaders who blame globalization for high unemployment, growing inequality and severe cutbacks to the social safety net. Speaking at the World Economic Forum yesterday, John Sweeney, president of the American Federation of Labour, said the debate on the future world economic system ``can no longer be contained in closed rooms in luxurious hotels.'' Sweeney said labour leaders will be converging on Seattle at the end of November, when trade ministers from around the world meet to launch a new round of global trade negotiations, to demand that that this include a strong commitment to worker and human rights and the environment. In particular, labour unions from around the world are demanding that new trade agreements entrench the core labour standards of the International Labour Organization. These are: freedom of association; the right to collective bargaining; no forced labour; no discrimination; and the elimination of child labour. The terrible social and economic costs of the global financial crisis can have a sobering effect, Sweeney said. ''For two decades, conservative governments have been on a binge, dismantling controls over capital, currencies and corporations. Now we awake, the morning after, our heads aching, our hearts burdened by the destruction we see around us.'' -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
