You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
International-UN-NGOs
WTO Talks Collapse
2006-07-25
Women, minorities most affected, and we're blamed of course.
July 24 (Bloomberg) -- Negotiations among six key governments over a new global trade agreement collapsed, with the European Union, Brazil, India and Japan blaming U.S. unwillingness to cut farm subsidies.

The impasse led Pascal Lamy, director-general of the World Trade Organization, to suspend the five-year-old talks aimed at dismantling market barriers and stimulating global economic growth. The WTO had aimed to seal an accord this year. ``The U.S. was unwilling to accept or even acknowledge the flexibility of others shown in the room,'' EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson told a news conference in Geneva after two days of talks. ``This action has led to the round being suspended.''
My fault, I dunnit ...
The WTO is trying to cobble together an accord that would provide at least $96 billion in global tariff reductions, lower subsidies and savings on freight costs. When negotiations began in 2001, the goal was an agreement estimated by the World Bank to be worth $800 billion -- about the size of South Korea's economy. The deal scuttled today would have been worth about as much as Romania's economy.
Pretty soon we'll be looking for a deal the size of Zimbabwe's economy; failing that one the size of North Korea.
``This is a major setback,'' Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim told journalists. ``We are as near to a disaster as we can imagine.'' Months may pass before negotiators resume their discussions, he said.

The U.S. didn't sweeten its offer to scale back spending on its farmers because trade partners were more concerned with protecting sensitive commodities such as beef with exemptions from tariff cuts, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said. She laughed off brushed off the other governments' assertions that the U.S. is to blame for the breakdown in talks. ``It's very clear that the United States is in very, very good company,'' Schwab said by telephone to reporters in Washington. ``The countries that have tended to be finger- pointing at this point are the ones that are reluctant to act in terms of market access.''

Lamy has demanded more flexibility from larger governments, calling concessions by the EU, the U.S., India and Brazil vital to the talks. He says the U.S. must impose tougher limits on aid to farmers, the EU has to cut its protective tariffs on commodity imports and India and Brazil should slash customs duties on industrial goods.

The administration of George W. Bush believes it is ``entitled to compensation dollar for dollar, for the farm subsidies they lose, from developing countries in the form of new market access,'' Mandelson said. The U.S. was the sole government among the six not to improve its offer, Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath said. ``It's very clear that the EU made a movement, and everybody put something on the table except for one country, who said we can't see anything on the table,'' he told reporters.

The EU has offered to trim its farm tariffs by an average of 50 percent, near the 51 percent cut demanded by a group of developing countries led by Brazil and India. The 25-nation bloc also says it wants to shield 8 percent of tariff lines from the highest duty cuts. For its part, the U.S. says the highest tariffs on farm goods should fall by 70 percent and only 1 percent of products be protected from duty cuts. Still, the U.S. has declined to lower the more than $22 billion limit in annual payments that it set last year in the talks. The U.S. now spends as much as $19 billion a year on farm support.
Posted by:Steve White

#9  I'm all for free trade a such as long as we maintain price stability for the peanut farmers. If that means subsidies I'm for it, if it means import limits, I'm for it, if it means a nuclear strike on some damn foreign cheap ass farmer, then I'm for it. That's what government is for, that and highways.
Posted by: 6   2006-07-25 19:28  

#8  Oh Darn!
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2006-07-25 19:15  

#7  Well, it's obvous that we have had a "frank" discussion of the issues. It is not the time for hand-wringing and despair and woe over the impasse. We are talking and not shooting, so we can build on that. I would recommend that we talk some more. We can work this out. We have all the geologic time that we need. So let's get crackin'!
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2006-07-25 19:01  

#6  Grom: Were you reading Zim-Bob's speech notes over his shoulder?
Posted by: USN, ret.   2006-07-25 14:38  

#5  The power of monopsony.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-07-25 09:20  

#4  The US gives aid to its farmers, but the other countries have import tariffs or protect market segments altogether. I agree that US farm support should be cut (most goes to "corporate" farms, not small family farms), but other countries must open their markets.
Posted by: Spot   2006-07-25 08:47  

#3  The EU has been so effective in enforcing budget limits and Kyoto limits upon its own members *cough*. Kyoto part II. Let's force the Americans to do our bidding, but we'll not enforce the limits upon ourselves. Right.
Posted by: Whomogum Creremble6430   2006-07-25 08:43  

#2  After the French first. After they cut off their farmers, we'll talk.
Posted by: Thetch Sperelet4392   2006-07-25 08:31  

#1  Let me get this straight - we put all of our farmers out of business, chuck self-sufficiency and become dependent on foreign food, and the foreign countries don't even give anything back? Wow, what a deal.
Posted by: gromky   2006-07-25 03:29  

00:00