Yoon nominates former boss to head broadcasting watchdog
Korean students outperform OECD average amid pandemic havoc: data
US rejects NK's 'double standard' claim on Seoul's satellite launch
Over 70,000 teens homeless, urgent support needed: professor
6 outgoing ministers ‘strong candidates’ for general elections: ruling party
[Martin Khor] Blame game stalls Doha trade talksBy 류근하
Published : March 4, 2011 - 18:22
Many political leaders have now proclaimed that the “Doha Round” must be completed this year.
Otherwise, it may have to be abandoned altogether, some have predicted.
But there is not a lot of chance the deal will be done now. Although the main proposals on the table are already so imbalanced against the developing countries, the developed countries want even more from them.
It is not likely that the big developing countries will give in to these unfair demands.
However, in the blame game that has been a significant part of the Doha talks, the rich countries have prepared the ground to pin the blame of a possible collapse on the developing countries.
The latest set of talks were held in Geneva in the last fortnight, among 11 WTO members called the G11 ― the United States, the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and Mauritius.
In fact, much of the negotiations took place not among the 11, but in bilateral talks between the United States on one hand, and China, India and Brazil.
As it is well known among those in the negotiations, the major block to Doha’s completion is the U.S.
U.S. President Barack Obama and his trade team have limited real negotiating authority because the Congress has to approve any trade deal.
However, the Congress is not in the mood to cooperate with the Obama administration .
In order to avoid a fight with the Congress even on a draft WTO deal, the U.S. officials have to show that they have not given up anything.
Otherwise, there would be opposition from the influential farm, union and business lobbies, afraid they would lose ground to imports.
This is especially problematic during the economic slowdown and with high unemployment.
They also have to show that U.S. companies and farms are going to get new business through increased exports.
Since there are limited gains from other rich countries, the U.S. is insisting on the bigger developing countries to open their markets in both goods and services.
But the developing countries have their own story. The draft deal (put forward in texts in December 2008) do not require developed countries to make any significant concessions.
In particular, they will be able to maintain their high agricultural subsidies because of the peculiar WTO system requiring some subsidies (known as the red box) to be reduced while allowing others (green) to continue without limits.
The U.S. and EU have shifted boxes from red to green, while maintaining or even increasing total subsidies.
The Organization for Econonic Cooperation and Development countries’ total support to agriculture in 2009 was $384 billion in 2009 compared to $326 billion in 2007.
Real cuts in agricultural subsidies in rich countries were supposed to be the priority aim of the Doha talks, when they started in 2001.
It’s quite clear that is not going to happen, given their entrenched farm interests.
The rich countries are also unwilling or unable to open up labour services, to allow more skilled personnel from developing countries to enter and work.
This was one of the key demands of developing countries, but has become almost a hopeless cause.
Meanwhile, the 2008 drafts require developing countries to drastically cut their industrial tariffs on industrial goods, in some countries by an average of 50-60 percent. They also have to cut their agricultural tariffs by up to 36 percent.
Least developed countries are exempted, but most of them are asked to cut 80 percent of all their tariffs in free trade agreements outside the WTO.
These tariff cuts mean cheaper imports, damaging the markets and even survival of local firms and farms of developing countries.
Thus, the developing countries will potentially suffer losses in production and jobs, while gaining little in new exports to the rich countries.
But that is only part of the story.
The U.S. is demanding that the major developing countries do even more, by cutting tariffs to zero in three large industrial sectors (chemicals, industrial machinery and electrical goods), or at least in two of them ― and that they also open up their service sectors even more than what are already offered to foreign ownership and competition.
This is where Brazil, China and India have objected.
The December 2008 texts are already imbalanced, but these new demands (which not only the U.S. but also EU, Japan and others are making) are too much, especially since the rich countries are not offering anything extra either.
So the talks have been stuck. But the countries are still trying. By April, new drafts of all the issues are expected to be ready, for a meeting of some Ministers to add the finishing touches in July.
Schedules of commitments will then be worked on, for a final deal in December.
Of course these are all timelines, and as of now no one is willing to bet they will be fulfilled, no thanks to the many broken deadlines prior.
By Martin Khor
Martin Khor is a columnist for the Malaysian daily Star. He is also executive director of the South Centre, a Geneva-based intergovernmental organization of developing countries. ― Ed.
(The Star/Asia News Network)
Half of young people struggling financially: Seoul
Banks, regulators shift blame for snowballing ELS losses
Drug demand rises over surge in ‘walking pneumonia,’ flu