US slams China, India at WTO

[OhioChick]

Source: Economic Times India

28 Jul, 2008, 1524 hrs IST, AGENCIES

GENEVA: The United States slammed China and India on Monday, saying they were threatening seven years of work on a new global commerce pact and using some of the strongest language yet at a crucial set of talks at the World Trade Organization.

David Shark, a US trade official, told the WTO's 153 members that the United States has "swallowed hard and accepted" a compromise proposal to open up trade in manufactured goods and agriculture.

But he criticized India for rejecting the package laid out by WTO chief Pascal Lamy, and China for backing out of terms it committed to last week.

"Their actions have thrown the entire Doha round into the gravest jeopardy of its nearly seven-year life," Shark said, according to a copy of his statement.


Read more: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Economy/US_slams_China_India_at_WTO/articleshow/3297362.cms

[rfranklin]

1. Not falling in line with the New World Order?

sounds good to me.

[SpiralHawk]

2. "You are either with us, or you are against us." - Republicon Corporate Totalitarians

[pampango]

3. BBC's story on the WTO situation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7528067.stm

China hit back by saying that rich nations were pushing developing countries into special deals on certain sectors while reserving the right to protect sensitive agricultural products.

"Priority sectors highlighted by them include machinery, chemicals and automobiles, in which they enjoy substantial export advantage," Lu Xiankun, press counsellor at China's World Trade Organization mission, told Reuters news agency.

The proposed settlement, brokered by Mr Lamy, calls for cutting the limit on European farm subsidies by 80% and US payments by 70% to about $14.5bn.

The deal also involves the EU offering 80,000 temporary visas a year for working in the services sector."
---------------
My understanding is that developing countries, led by China and India, want the US and Europe to reduce subsidies to their farmers, so that farmers in the Third World can compete with them. In exchange the US and Europe want lower tariffs in developing countries, partly since our tariffs on their exports is already fairly low as evidenced by the surge in imports to US from the Third World.

I didn't know that we had an export advantage in "machinery, chemicals and automobiles". The Chinese view of this is quite interesting. :shrug:

[cal04]

4. Tempers flare threatening WTO deal

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24094342-12377,00.html

CRUCIAL WTO talks turned fiery yesterday, as major trading powers United States, China and India exchanged harsh words, blaming each other for obstacles holding up a global trade liberalisation deal.

(snip)
"It (China) is a little bit surprised that at this time the US started this finger pointing," he said.

He also turned the tables on the US, arguing that while Washington had offered to cut the ceiling of its agricultural subsidies to $US14.5 billion ($15.2 billion), the actual annual spending was only $US7 billion to $US8 billion ($7.34 billion to $8.4 billion) a year.

(snip)
"Who's holding up this round I think are the large developed countries... who are looking for commercial interests and enhancing prosperity rather than looking for content which reduces poverty."

Mr Nath also insisted he had never signed up to the compromise package but was "still optimistic" a deal could be reached.

[0rganism]

5. Perhaps we can call the whole damn thing off?

GATT and NAFTA have been multilateral losers. It's time to have a comprehensive trade policy review.