Developing nations to the WTO: Drop Dead

[marmar]

via Truthout:



WTO Talks Collapse Amidst Developing Countries' Reluctance to Sacrifice Food Security
Tuesday 29 July 2008

»
by: The Center for Economic and Policy Research

Last-minute attempt to push through a WTO expansion "deal" fails.

Washington, DC - Despite trade ministers' hopes for a last-minute deal, World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations collapsed yet again today, and observers at the talks in Geneva say that the failure is not surprising, given the reluctance of India and other developing nations to sacrifice food security measures in the wake of the recent global spike in food prices.

Given President Bush's lame duck status, negotiators had been called to Geneva to try to push through a last-minute deal before Bush left office. Because negotiators need about six months after a deal on the major issues to complete the details of the agreement, this possibility has now evaporated.

"Given what's been on the table, no deal is better than a bad deal. A Doha conclusion would have had major negative impacts for workers and farmers in developing countries. The tariff cuts demanded of developing countries would have caused massive job loss, and countries would have lost the ability to protect farmers from dumping, further impoverishing millions on the verge of survival," said Deborah James, Director of International Programs for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who has been observing the talks in Geneva.

It is unclear why negotiations were proceeding, given the fact that the U.S. delegation does not have a mandate to conclude negotiations, as made clear by a letter from Senators Feingold and Byrd sent to President Bush last week. In addition, cuts in subsidies agreed to by the U.S. are also incompatible with the new U.S. Farm Bill passed by Congress, and over-riding a veto by President Bush.

Many developing nations not invited to participate in the exclusive "Green Room" meetings in Geneva this past week are likely to continue strong opposition to a deal in the midst of a global economic downturn and increasing concerns over food security. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthout.org/article/wto-talks-collapse-amidst-concerns-food-security

[gratuitous]

1. "No deal is better than a bad deal"

Would someone please stitch that on a pillow and send it to our fearless Democratic leaders in Congress?

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. It's a simple problem: We subsidize US farmers and agribusiness

far beyond what a true global market would support for their product. As a result, farmers in developing countries starve to death. In return, the rural vote is locked in for anyone that will continue this catastrophic policy, ethics or basic decency be damned.

It's really not that complicated.

[Fovea]

3. Actually, so do developing nations.

through tariffs and price supports.

And when it comes to food, I think national sovereignty comes first.

Of course, global trade is collapsing with unsupportable transportation and petroleum feedstock costs anyway.

[sentelle]

4. seriously

Why would they take a 'bargain' that we in the US would not take? Is it that we assume that other countries are stupid, or are we so arrogant to assume that others would sacrifice their own product for the same product from America?