Monday, September 15, 2003
WTO Smackdown
Looks like Third World countries have also figured out the Bush bait-and-switch, as the lastest round of WTO talks fail over U.S. intransigence on farm subsidies:
To be fair to the Bushies, free-trade hypocrisy is not unique to them. From its inception, one of the WTO's open secrets has been the U.S.'s goal of prying open foreign markets to multinational penetration, not opening our markets to others, which is why the U.S. continues to have a well-tended safety net of subsidies for well-connected industries, depsite all the free-trade blather from cheerleaders like Tom Friedman. Still, for those of us familiar with the Bushies' "For a hamburger today, I will gladly pay you someday" approach to nearly everything, the G22's refusal to bend over is yet another refreshing sign that people are finally waking up.
For an interesting comparison, the New York Times has a much more US-centric account of the talks here.
[UPDATE:] Via Eschaton, a savvy analysis at Crooked Timber that gets at a standoff missed by both major papers above.
The talks ran out of steam because, for the first time in WTO history, developing countries refused to let the United States and Europe steer negotiations to suit their interests, said Ottawa trade consultant Peter Clark.
A new "G22" bloc of developing countries led by Brazil — and backed by China, a growing economic powerhouse that recently joined the WTO — emerged as an immovable object to the usually unstoppable force of will that is Washington and Brussels. African, Pacific Rim and Caribbean countries also banded together in an informal alliance. "This signals that developing countries are tired of negotiations being stage-managed and having deals imposed on them," Mr. Clark said.
"This time the G22 and the African group got together, dug in their heels and stuck with their guns and made it clear they are not going to be rolled," he said.
"It's a new reality and they're going to have to face up to it."
Poor countries wouldn't accept the shallow subsidy cuts, which were offered only on the condition that they also begin negotiations on the so-called Singapore issues to protect multinationals' interests in developing countries.
"They were not prepared to engage on issues of interest to multinational business such as investment, competition policy and government because they saw the agricultural offer as a pig in a poke," Mr. Clark said.
To be fair to the Bushies, free-trade hypocrisy is not unique to them. From its inception, one of the WTO's open secrets has been the U.S.'s goal of prying open foreign markets to multinational penetration, not opening our markets to others, which is why the U.S. continues to have a well-tended safety net of subsidies for well-connected industries, depsite all the free-trade blather from cheerleaders like Tom Friedman. Still, for those of us familiar with the Bushies' "For a hamburger today, I will gladly pay you someday" approach to nearly everything, the G22's refusal to bend over is yet another refreshing sign that people are finally waking up.
For an interesting comparison, the New York Times has a much more US-centric account of the talks here.
[UPDATE:] Via Eschaton, a savvy analysis at Crooked Timber that gets at a standoff missed by both major papers above.
When push came to shove, the rich nations were not prepared to give an inch to the poor ones on agriculture unless they got their quid pro quo in the form of progress toward an agenda which has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with massively undermining the ability of democratically elected governments to set the terms on which the ownership of the means of production is decided.
