Fieldwork 2012 begins in Washington DC tomorrow.
Where I’m interviewing some super elites in US trade and World Bank-y-ness, but because all of my interviews are anonomous, I can’t brag about who they are.
Womp womp.
Posts tagged trade
From hemispherepolitico:
For all you wonks out there here is a 30+ page report on Latin American companies in China. There is always much discussion about China and its companies and investments in Latin American countries but one does not hear much about the reverse. Last I recall trade is a two-way street.
YES! What a great find! Especially amid last week’s annoucement from the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) that Mexico has filed a dispute against China (subsidies) in a rare ‘developing’ nation v ‘developing’ nation challenge to the WTO’s rules.
GMOs are a controversial climate adaptation measure. But, drought resistant crops are necessary.
Agricultural biotechnology companies have been pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into developing plants that can withstand the effects of a prolonged dry spell. Monsanto Co., based in St. Louis, has received regulatory approval for DroughtGard, a corn variety that contains the first genetically modified trait for drought resistance.
Seed makers, such as Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. of Johnston, Iowa, and Swiss company Syngenta, are already selling drought-tolerant corn varieties, conceived through conventional breeding.
At stake: a $12-billion U.S. seed market, with corn comprising the bulk of sales. The grain is used in such things as animal feed, ethanol and food. The push is also on to develop soybean, cotton and wheat that can thrive in a world that’s getting hotter and drier.
“Drought is definitely going to be one of the biggest challenges for our growers,” said Jeff Schussler, senior research manager for Pioneer, the agribusiness arm of DuPont. “We are trying to create products for farmers to be prepared for that.”
Their efforts come amid concerns about genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, and the unforeseen consequences of this genetic tinkering. Californians in November will vote on Proposition 37, which would require foods to carry labels if they were genetically modified. The majority of corn seed sold is modified to resist pests and reap higher yields.
Opponents say the label would unnecessarily dampen further development that is intended to feed a growing global population dependent on the U.S., the largest exporter of corn and soybean.
“Trying to create drought-tolerant crops is not going to be easy to do,” said Kent Bradford, director of the Seed Biotechnology Center at UC Davis. “We certainly need all the tools [available] to do that, and that includes conventional breeding and adding transgenic traits. We don’t need to stigmatize these approaches.”
Great read via LATimes
Cards on the table, I’m still sick and didn’t read the whole article. But there’s a basically obvious point that isn’t made here that agricultural political economists have been trying to communicate for years.
Drought resistant crops are not a necessary evil.
Yes, they are evil, but they are not necessary. What is necessary is a more diverse international market for corn (for food production, not ethanol). DOES NO ONE REMEMBER NAFTA?! … probably not. If you’re old enough to remember one power politic move of NAFTA was to take away corn growing power from Mexico (and other Central American states). Mexico was told to clear their corn fields and plant agave; agave was to be their cash crop now, despite the fact that the majority of the Mexican diet is based on corn grown locally and cheaply (not an import product).
…I know I’m angsty because of this flu, but this is what I’m talking about when I go on about how we MUST remember history! This is even recent history! If we accept that GMOs/drought resistant crops are a necessary evil we 1) allow USAg, the USDA, and the people who came up with the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) to tell us it is GMOs or nothing and 2) we accept the injustices that come along with bully-pulpit agricultural political economy/international politics.
Look, all I am saying, is that if NAFTA hadn’t taken away corn growing power from Mexico, you’d all still have cheap corn at your Fourth of July bbqs. …this isn’t complicated intelligence, (shee)people; it’s using historical knowledge to think critically about our governments tell us we must accept.
just in case it wasn’t clear, FUCK MONSANTO.
The International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) - the people who ran the (WTO) MC8 Parallel Symposium on trade and development I attended in Geneva in December - has produced a new ebook, The Future and the WTO: Confronting the Challenges, A Collection of Short Essays, with some BIG, BIG names contributing:
- Roderick Abbott - The Future of the Multilateral Trading System and the WTO
- Andrew Stoler - Addressing 20th Century ‘WTO-Plus’ Issues in the Multilateral Trading System
- Debra Steger (see December link above) - Strengthening the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Establishing a Dispute Tribunal
- Carolyn Deere-Birkbeck - The Future of the WTO: Governing Trade for a Fairer, More Sustainable Future
- Rorden Wilkinson (see December link above) - What Needs to Be Done Before We Can Reform the WTO
- Pradeep S Mehta and Natasha Nayak - Global Problems Need Global Solutions: The Need for a Multilateral Framework on Competition
- TU Xinquan and LIN Guijun (see Geneva link for EPIC snippet of his paper talk) - The Revival of the Industrial Policy: How Should the WTO Address It?
- Peter Allgeier - The Trade Toolbox and Environmental Sustainability: The Case for Fisheries
- Christophe Bellman and Marie Wilke - Trade Policies for Resource Security: Rethinking Export Restrictions
And this is just a sampling of the people I know! There are 30 contributions in this epic ebook that address the scope and difficulties in governing international trade. When I began my long labour of love to becoming a WTO scholar, I wish I had known things like this were out there. If you’re interested in more information on the 30 essays (topic, contributor, etc), send a message, and I’ll pass along the good word. THIS IS A NOT-TO-BE-MISSED FOR TRADE AND POLITICAL ECONOMY SCHOLARS!
Why is Luanda, Angola so expensive? …the Economist knows. Of course they know, but they also remind you in the last paragraph why they are still slightly better than bog roll. *scorned* Content below property of the Economist (2012).
- a by no means luxurious hotel room costs $400,
- a non-alcoholic drink in the lobby $10 ($2 in a supermarket)
- the underwhelming hotel buffet will set you back $75 and
- a pizza on a street corner $25
- a regular taxi ride (from the only taxi company in town) easily adds up to $50,
- an apartment costs $10,000-$15,000 to rent per month or at least a million dollars to buy
- labourers get paid $50 per month. That tells you a lot about the gap between rich and poor. Angola has one of the worst Gini coefficients in the world.
The crazy prices were initially the result of limited supply during and shortly after the civil war that ended in 2002. When peace became permanent, trade routes opened up again and new companies tried to enter the market.But insiders had come to like the wildly above-average profits they were making and so made sure the trade barriers stayed in place. In Luanda an avocado can cost $5, while in the countryside you get a hundred avocados for $10. To get fruit to town, lorry drivers and merchants have to negotiate a mesmerising obstacle course of bribe-seeking officials, guards, thugs, policemen and soldiers.
China and Latin America and the Caribbean: Building a strategic economic and trade relationship
The [Latin American and Caribbean] region’s trade relationship with China therefore presents both opportunities and challenges. One major challenge is to prevent the growing trade with China from reproducing and entrenching a centreperiphery trade pattern in which China emerges as a new centre and the countries of the Latin American and Caribbean region as a new periphery. What is required, then, is progress towards trade relations that are more in keeping with the economic and social development patterns that this region needs.
The region must tap this historic opportunity to make the investments in infrastructure, innovation and human resources needed to convert the gains derived from natural resources into human capital and international competitiveness. Higher levels of innovation and the endogenous development of technological capabilities should be promoted as a matter of urgency.
I would like 10 minutes alone with this document, please. *blush*
The Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC) released a new publication entitled China and Latin America and the Caribbean: Building a strategic economic and trade relationship.
This document argues that China and the Latin American and Caribbean region now enjoy a sufficiently mature relationship and are poised to make a qualitative leap towards a mutually beneficial strategic alliance. It is available in English and Spanish.
*ugh* This is poorly news
From the WTO News:
TRADE GROWTH TO SLOW IN 2012 AFTER STRONG DECELERATION IN 2011
World trade expanded in 2011 by 5.0%, a sharp deceleration from the 2010 rebound of 13.8%, and growth will slow further still to 3.7% in 2012, WTO economists project. They attributed the slowdown to the global economy losing momentum due to a number of shocks, including the European sovereign debt crisis.
Husband and I had a chat the other night (because he lives here now, and we can do that sort of thing) that the global elite really has nothing to gain from improving the global economy. Those that are in control (speculation, investment, day trading, ‘market bets’ - supply/demand no longer accurate determinants of economic behaviour) of the economy are making money regardless whether ‘the people’ are keeping their heads above water; some corporations and top elites have even done better during ‘the recession’. So without a slew of links, here’s my HT to Roubini - things aren’t going to get better for ‘the people’ (for a while).
When growth from trade slows, developing nations suffer the most (see Schellberg (2009) ‘Doha Recovery Critical for Global Economic Recovery), unable to ‘clear the development hurdle’. This will be a big setback for the UN Millennium Development Goals and, of course, billions of people globally. Expect developed nation ‘standard of living’ to return to the 1980s - prone to spikes of inflation and (more-so) closed markets - with the slight but notable return of manufacturing and improved relations with proximal trading partners.
(analysis limited to political economy of international trade; could be developed significantly using a (neo)realist frame: ‘resource wars’)
Clove cigarettes and US consumers
Were you aware that in June 2009 clove cigarettes became illegal in the United States?
No? …me either. My husband loves cloves, and a few minutes ago the WTO panel report on a Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) case, DS406, US - clove cigarettes, between the United States and Indonesia hit my inbox. It was too interesting to not post.
In 2009, US H.R. 1256 (powered by the FDA) prohibited ‘flavoured’ cigarettes, and this apparently (according to USTR) includes clove cigarettes but does NOT include menthol cigarettes. The FDA objected that ‘flavoured’ cigarettes target children or young smokers and contribute to all around poor national health.
Indonesia brought the case to the WTO DSU in April 2010. Here is a breakdown of the case and findings:
- From the WTO case report: ‘Indonesia is the world’s main producer of clove cigarettes, and the vast majority of clove cigarettes consumed in the United States prior to the ban were imported from Indonesia. Indonesia’s main claims were that the ban on clove cigarettes is discriminatory, and that it is also unnecessary.’
- ‘In one of its key findings, the Panel found that the ban is inconsistent with the national treatment obligation in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement because it accords clove cigarettes less favourable treatment than that accorded to menthol-flavoured cigarettes. The Panel found that clove and menthol-flavoured cigarettes are “like products” within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, based in part on its factual findings that both types of cigarettes are flavoured and appeal to youth. Having found a violation of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, the Panel declined to rule on Indonesia’s claim…’ (Source: Ibid)
- ‘However, the Panel rejected Indonesia’s second main claim, which was that the ban is unnecessary. In this regard, the Panel found that Indonesia had failed to demonstrate that the ban is more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective (in this case, reducing youth smoking)…’
-
‘As regards Indonesia’s other claims under the TBT Agreement, the Panel found that the United States acted inconsistently with Article 2.9.2 (obligation to notify WTO Members of technical regulations) and Article 2.12 (obligation to allow reasonable interval between publication and entry into force of technical regulations). However, the Panel found that Indonesia failed to demonstrate that the United States acted inconsistently with Article 2.5 (obligation to provide an explanation of draft technical regulation), Article 2.8 (obligation to specify a technical regulation in terms of performance), Article 2.9.3 (obligation to provide particulars or copies of the proposed technical regulation) or Article 12.3 (obligation to take account of the special development, financial and trade needs of a developing country Member), and declined to rule on Indonesia’s claim under Article 2.10 (obligation to notify in cases of urgency).’
So as always, some wins and loses for developing nations’ cases against the US.
So what’s next for clove cigarettes in the US? Thoughts?
WTO: Indonesian Port Closure Causes Concern
Indonesia will close a hub port in Jakarta to imports of fresh fruits and vegetables on 19 June 2012, postponed from original date of 19 March, causing concern among some of the world’s major agricultural exporters - the US, the EU, Australia, Chile, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa.
From the WTO news brief:
[The US-led coalition] said the vast majority of horticultural imports (90%, according to the US and New Zealand), enter through Jakarta, and that the use of alternative ports will add several days of transportation, increasing costs and affecting the shelf life of perishable produce.
Indonesia cited food safety and plant health reasons but did not notify any phytosanitary issues involving American fruit and vegetable exports, the US said. Nor has any scientific justification been produced, it said.
Canada, which does not export much fruit and vegetables to Indonesia, said that it is concerned that the measure could be extended to meat and other animal products.
Indonesia said the closure is needed because the ports to be closed do not have enough laboratory and quarantine facilities to deal with threats found in imported products. Four seaports and one airport will stay open for these imports, and the postponement to 19 June is designed to give trade partners enough time to set up new infrastructure such as warehouses, it said.
Agricultural products are THE most highly contested in global trade. With no conclusion to Doha (and resulting multilateral trade agreement) and the global marketplace continuing to shrink for developing nations, this (protectionist) shift is not uncommon or difficult to understand. Canada is expressing just concerns and in my opinion, is approaching a VERY hot button issue in a very appropriate way. …As opposed to USTR Ron Kirk’s approach.
Hooray Canada? …also boo Indonesia? If only it were that simple…this is agricultural power politics at its best!
Thoughts?
A few miles away, the White House organized a conference call with two senior administration officials to preview an announcement by President Barack Obama about an important China trade issue but told reporters that no one could be quoted by name. The officials were U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and the deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, Michael Froman.
President Obama is pushing for a new batch of files to be made secret by Congress, even under the Freedom of Information Act. [AP via Huffington Post] (via producermatthew)
SECRET TRADE FILES - SQUEE.
finally, trade *my area of research* has moved into the top secret category…
this is entirely sarcastic.
![AGAIN, sorry for the poor format. If the FT would let me access articles online, I could link to them … but then you’d need to pay to access the article. NO MORE ELITE ACCESS JOURNALISM! (slight lol)
A little bit of trade (non)blogging is in order. I know this LOOKS boring, but it matters for you, skip to the end to find out why.
From the FT (7 March 2012, pg. 9)
Headline:US takes India’s ban on poultry imports to WTO
Text: The US has launched a case against India at the World Trade Organisation, charging that the Asian nation’s ban on poultry imports - imposed to prevent avian flu - violates global trade rules. The move comes as the Obama administration has become more aggressive on trade enforcement, recently establishing a task-force across government agencies to co-ordinate litigation efforts.
In a statement yesterday, Ron Kirk, the US trade representative [USTR], said India’s ban on poultry meat and chicken eggs - imposed in 2007 - was “clearly a case of disguising trade restrictions by invoking unjustified animal health concerns”. He was confident that the WTO would rule in favour of the US and declare the ban to be “unjustified”. “Opening India’s market to American farmers will promote jobs here at home, while also providing Indian consumers with access to high quality safe US products,” he said.
The US government had faced pressure from some members of Congress from both parties - and the US poultry industry - to press ahead with a case against India to force the country to liberalise its rapidly growing chicken market.
According to estimates published by the National Chicken Council in the US, the Indian poultry market is expanding by 8 to 10 per cent every year and could potentially lead to annual US exports of $300m, if the ban were lifted.
The US has often clashed with some of its biggest trading partners, including the European Union, over the past decade on poultry exports. The Obama administration filed a WO case against China last year challenging its imposition of trade remedies against US poultry exports.
James Politi,
Washington
Here’s some commentary from me, an agricultural political economist who’s doctoral research on market distortion from US agricultural subsidies in corn and cotton was rejected from every top-tier US academic institution.
Kirk’s comment that India is disguising poultry ban under “unjustified animal health concerns”: …If you’re unaware of US poultry farms considerations for animal health, I suggest you start here. Or here’s a great blog by my colleague, Steve Cooke, animal rights philosopher and aficionado. If you’re aware, great - you’ve done me a great service in speaking the same language. India’s concern that US poultry farms violate nationalist terms of animal health is completely justified. And while I’m no fan of statehood, its what we are working with here, and India has the right, under WTO precedent to reject US poultry based on concerns for animal health.
Kirk said that “opening India’s market to American farmers will promote jobs here at home.” This is the sort of rhetoric we (academics in the WTO) hear over and over again from USTR, and it just kills us. Indian farmers are still committing mass suicide as a form of protest against market liberalisation. “Liberalising” India’s poultry market will NOT, in any way, bring more jobs to American farmers. The comparison between poultry markets is far from equal. US poultry (mass ‘farming’), Indian poultry (still very much these INDIVIDUALS who are committing suicide). Kirk has no basis to stand on this claim. Farming job creation in the US from developing nation liberalisation is a fallacy and a made-up concept to protect the US agricultural industry. They do this time and time again, and us at the WTO just have to sit and listen as Kirk goes on these factually-inaccurate rants about US farming jobs.
Which brings me to my next point, not only is the FT evoking an incorrect use of liberalisation - “to press ahead with a case against India to force the country to liberalise its rapidly growing chicken market” - but the FT seems to herald bipartisan pressure from Congress as something unprecedented. This is not something I can link to. I can only tell you from 7 years of reading technical documents about US agricultural and farm lobby and their relationship with Congress, its not something new. When it comes to trade in agriculture, Congress acts across the board in favour of whatever US agricultural and farm lobbyists pay tell them to. This is just poor journalism.
Again, poor journalism by the FT - this piece written by James Politi, Washington, D.C., where journalism about US agriculture is first written, then edited by those who control the puppet strings in US Ag/Farming - citing a report by the National Chicken Council in the US. I wonder which side the report will be in favour of. What about the Indian Agricultural Research Institute or the Indian Council of Agricultural Research or the Poultry Federation of India or even the WTO SECRETARIAT This is what I mean when I say I cannot link to 7 years of reading technical reports, but I can show you that this piece of journalism is poorly represented and poorly done, demonstrating extreme bias in what we read concerning international agricultural disputes.
US - EU precedent case DS100 about poultry bans due to animal health: This is a case from 1997, in which, “the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of a ban on imports of poultry and poultry products from the EC by the US Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service, and any related measures. The EC contended that although the ban is allegedly on grounds of product safety, the ban does not indicate the grounds upon which EC poultry products have suddenly become ineligible for entry into the US market.” The US has been making up the rules as they go in regards to poultry imports and export bans for decades. This case falls in Sanitary/Phytosanitary measures, therefore, the US’ complaint against (formerly EC) EU poultry was animal health. 15 years later, the US has flipped this case, saying that concerns about animal health is not grounds for an import-ban.
Finally, the China case Politi is referencing does no justice to the US defense/WTO-complaint when you actually look at the case Politi is referencing. DSU392, in this 2009 case, the US “effectively prohibits the establishment or implementation of any measures that would allow Chinese poultry to be imported into the United States because it denies the use of any funding by USDA for this purpose.” … Furthermore, “China also specifies that, although it does not believe that the US measure or any closely related measures at issue constitute sanitary and phytosanitary measures within the meaning of the SPS Agreement, if it were demonstrated that any such measure is a SPS measure, China would consider such measure also to be in violation of US obligations under various provisions of the SPS Agreement.” So the whole animal health concern being unjustified is flipped on its head here again in the 2009 case (from the 1997 EU case).
The point is, US agriculture/farming uses animal health concerns (sanitary and phytosanitary measures) to manipulate when it does and when it doesn’t allow poultry imports. They further use this concern for animal health to bring a complaint when a nation won’t allow US poultry exports due to concerns for animal health. I know its confusing and terribly technical, but its my job to translate it to the public. I’m probably not doing it as well as I’d hope, but my objective is to point out to the ‘American exceptionalism’ that pervades not just US military/foreign policy but also US agricultural policy.This domestic policy (ie: protectionism in agricultural markets) becomes a WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) case, and then becomes international trade law. So this isn’t just two-sides bickering. This is bickering that becomes international law.
Finally, here’s the thing with India and the US in the WTO: there’s a long history here, and it ain’t pretty. This case will be a landmark case, just like DSU381 - the recent ruling on Mexican import-bans on “dolphin-friendly” US-sourced Pacific tuna. WATCH FOR IT. International trade law (especially in agriculture) is not easy to decipher, but I cannot tell you how much THIS STUFF MATTERS FOR YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL, YOU, THE CONSUMER, YOU, THE CITIZEN FOR JUSTICE.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0oa3wBYjc1qh8c1zo1_400.jpg)
AGAIN, sorry for the poor format. If the FT would let me access articles online, I could link to them … but then you’d need to pay to access the article. NO MORE ELITE ACCESS JOURNALISM! (slight lol)
A little bit of trade (non)blogging is in order. I know this LOOKS boring, but it matters for you, skip to the end to find out why.
From the FT (7 March 2012, pg. 9)
Headline:US takes India’s ban on poultry imports to WTO
Text: The US has launched a case against India at the World Trade Organisation, charging that the Asian nation’s ban on poultry imports - imposed to prevent avian flu - violates global trade rules. The move comes as the Obama administration has become more aggressive on trade enforcement, recently establishing a task-force across government agencies to co-ordinate litigation efforts.
In a statement yesterday, Ron Kirk, the US trade representative [USTR], said India’s ban on poultry meat and chicken eggs - imposed in 2007 - was “clearly a case of disguising trade restrictions by invoking unjustified animal health concerns”. He was confident that the WTO would rule in favour of the US and declare the ban to be “unjustified”. “Opening India’s market to American farmers will promote jobs here at home, while also providing Indian consumers with access to high quality safe US products,” he said.
The US government had faced pressure from some members of Congress from both parties - and the US poultry industry - to press ahead with a case against India to force the country to liberalise its rapidly growing chicken market.
According to estimates published by the National Chicken Council in the US, the Indian poultry market is expanding by 8 to 10 per cent every year and could potentially lead to annual US exports of $300m, if the ban were lifted.
The US has often clashed with some of its biggest trading partners, including the European Union, over the past decade on poultry exports. The Obama administration filed a WO case against China last year challenging its imposition of trade remedies against US poultry exports.
James Politi,
Washington
Here’s some commentary from me, an agricultural political economist who’s doctoral research on market distortion from US agricultural subsidies in corn and cotton was rejected from every top-tier US academic institution.
- Kirk’s comment that India is disguising poultry ban under “unjustified animal health concerns”: …If you’re unaware of US poultry farms considerations for animal health, I suggest you start here. Or here’s a great blog by my colleague, Steve Cooke, animal rights philosopher and aficionado. If you’re aware, great - you’ve done me a great service in speaking the same language. India’s concern that US poultry farms violate nationalist terms of animal health is completely justified. And while I’m no fan of statehood, its what we are working with here, and India has the right, under WTO precedent to reject US poultry based on concerns for animal health.
- Kirk said that “opening India’s market to American farmers will promote jobs here at home.” This is the sort of rhetoric we (academics in the WTO) hear over and over again from USTR, and it just kills us. Indian farmers are still committing mass suicide as a form of protest against market liberalisation. “Liberalising” India’s poultry market will NOT, in any way, bring more jobs to American farmers. The comparison between poultry markets is far from equal. US poultry (mass ‘farming’), Indian poultry (still very much these INDIVIDUALS who are committing suicide). Kirk has no basis to stand on this claim. Farming job creation in the US from developing nation liberalisation is a fallacy and a made-up concept to protect the US agricultural industry. They do this time and time again, and us at the WTO just have to sit and listen as Kirk goes on these factually-inaccurate rants about US farming jobs.
- Which brings me to my next point, not only is the FT evoking an incorrect use of liberalisation - “to press ahead with a case against India to force the country to liberalise its rapidly growing chicken market” - but the FT seems to herald bipartisan pressure from Congress as something unprecedented. This is not something I can link to. I can only tell you from 7 years of reading technical documents about US agricultural and farm lobby and their relationship with Congress, its not something new. When it comes to trade in agriculture, Congress acts across the board in favour of whatever US agricultural and farm lobbyists
paytell them to. This is just poor journalism. - Again, poor journalism by the FT - this piece written by James Politi, Washington, D.C., where journalism about US agriculture is first written, then edited by those who control the puppet strings in US Ag/Farming - citing a report by the National Chicken Council in the US. I wonder which side the report will be in favour of. What about the Indian Agricultural Research Institute or the Indian Council of Agricultural Research or the Poultry Federation of India or even the WTO SECRETARIAT This is what I mean when I say I cannot link to 7 years of reading technical reports, but I can show you that this piece of journalism is poorly represented and poorly done, demonstrating extreme bias in what we read concerning international agricultural disputes.
- US - EU precedent case DS100 about poultry bans due to animal health: This is a case from 1997, in which, “the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of a ban on imports of poultry and poultry products from the EC by the US Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service, and any related measures. The EC contended that although the ban is allegedly on grounds of product safety, the ban does not indicate the grounds upon which EC poultry products have suddenly become ineligible for entry into the US market.” The US has been making up the rules as they go in regards to poultry imports and export bans for decades. This case falls in Sanitary/Phytosanitary measures, therefore, the US’ complaint against (formerly EC) EU poultry was animal health. 15 years later, the US has flipped this case, saying that concerns about animal health is not grounds for an import-ban.
- Finally, the China case Politi is referencing does no justice to the US defense/WTO-complaint when you actually look at the case Politi is referencing. DSU392, in this 2009 case, the US “effectively prohibits the establishment or implementation of any measures that would allow Chinese poultry to be imported into the United States because it denies the use of any funding by USDA for this purpose.” … Furthermore, “China also specifies that, although it does not believe that the US measure or any closely related measures at issue constitute sanitary and phytosanitary measures within the meaning of the SPS Agreement, if it were demonstrated that any such measure is a SPS measure, China would consider such measure also to be in violation of US obligations under various provisions of the SPS Agreement.” So the whole animal health concern being unjustified is flipped on its head here again in the 2009 case (from the 1997 EU case).
The point is, US agriculture/farming uses animal health concerns (sanitary and phytosanitary measures) to manipulate when it does and when it doesn’t allow poultry imports. They further use this concern for animal health to bring a complaint when a nation won’t allow US poultry exports due to concerns for animal health. I know its confusing and terribly technical, but its my job to translate it to the public. I’m probably not doing it as well as I’d hope, but my objective is to point out to the ‘American exceptionalism’ that pervades not just US military/foreign policy but also US agricultural policy.This domestic policy (ie: protectionism in agricultural markets) becomes a WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) case, and then becomes international trade law. So this isn’t just two-sides bickering. This is bickering that becomes international law.
Finally, here’s the thing with India and the US in the WTO: there’s a long history here, and it ain’t pretty. This case will be a landmark case, just like DSU381 - the recent ruling on Mexican import-bans on “dolphin-friendly” US-sourced Pacific tuna. WATCH FOR IT. International trade law (especially in agriculture) is not easy to decipher, but I cannot tell you how much THIS STUFF MATTERS FOR YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL, YOU, THE CONSUMER, YOU, THE CITIZEN FOR JUSTICE.
On the Administration’s part, US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack attempted to cushion the political blow from the cuts, using language that emphasised the record-breaking farm revenue from exports in recent years. High farm incomes have made support for subsidies a political liability, due to the impacts of the ongoing recession.
…
For many observers, its still unclear whether or not there will even be a farm bill in 2012 - estimates have ranged from 15 to 50 percent on chances that any version of the legislation will pass. In the absence of a new Farm Bill, it is likely that Congress will authorise farm expenditures based on current legislation for another year.
See Bridges Weekly (ICTSD) for (HOORAY!) ‘Obama Proposes Billions in Subsidy Cuts as Farm Bills Kicks Off’.
US agricultural subsidies have been distorting the global agricultural market for decades. By supporting the domestic agricultural market (keeping US farmers afloat and US produce costs [artifically] low for the consumer) with subsidies in core crops that the US no longer maintains a competitive edge, global competitors in less developed countries are forced to sell their agricultural products at the same artifically low price in the global marketplace.
At some point, the consumers in the US will feel this; prices on produce will adjust to what US consumers SHOULD have been paying for decades - but due to domestic subsidies and market distortion, they haven’t. I’m very pleased Obama is taking this initiative - as US agricultural subsidies ALONE have been a major reason for the lack of progress on Doha (see previous post) - to rectify the increasing gap between US consumers’ overconsumption and widespread hunger in less developed nations that rely on agricultural exports.
The WTO chief has repeatedly made clear that concluding a Doha deal in 2012 will not be possible, telling audience members at last month’s Davos meet that members lack “the necessary political energy to compromise.” The tone marks a sharp turn-around from last year’s push to make 2011 a “make or break year” for the Doha talks, which failed to lead either to a full Doha deal or to a smaller mini-package.
piece from Bridges Weekly (ICTSD) on WTO head, Pascal Lamy, urging for 2012 to not be a wasted year on Doha movement.
…I love my thesis.
If we become the majority party in the upcoming general elections as expected, we will take every measure possible to repeal the Korea-US FTA
“the Democratic United Party (DUP) - South Korea’s main opposition party - said in a letter to US officials, including US President Barack Obama, about repealing the recently ratified FTA (Free Trade Agreement) between the US and South Korea.
The DUP, together with the United Progressive Party - also an opposition party - have called for the renegotiation of ten clauses that they have deemed “poisonous,” including an investor-state dispute clause in the trade pact’s chapter on foreign investments that allows either party to bypass domestic courts and refer investor-state disputes to an international arbitration panel.
Critics argue that this provision would give US investors undue right to sue the Korean government; proponents note that the clause has already appeared in past Korean FTAs and has yet to lead to Seoul being sued.”
See more from ICTSD
Now THAT is a thesis statement
Despite Mike Moore’s attempts to demonstrate effective executive leadership, the WTO remained an infant organization with no demonstrative contribution to the governance of global trade.*
*See Paul Blustein (2009) Chapter 4, “Clueless in Seattle” and Fatoumata Jawara and Alieen Kwa, Behind the Scenes at the WTO (2004).
