Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
The group that opposed the West's manipulation of trade agreements "represents most of the world's population." It represents the markets the West needs to sell to in order to keep its economies growing ("growing economies" just means means circulating more currency, btw).They also own most of the natural resources. And they've seen what "Free Trade" really means.
Western trade policy toward Westernizing nations has been the international equivalent of the class warfare taking place in the USofA. No one seems to remember that the rich guys have never won a class war, because there's just so damn many poor folks.
By Niko Price, Associated Press, 9/15/2003
CANCUN, Mexico -- Talks designed to change the face of trade around the world collapsed yesterday amid differences between rich and poor nations, the second failure for the World Trade Organization in four years.
Delegates from many poor countries celebrated what they called a victory against the West, and an increasingly powerful alliance of poor but populous farming nations said they had found a new voice to rival the developed world.
"The developing countries have come into their own," said Malaysia's minister for international trade and investment, Rafidah Aziz. "This has made it clear that developing countries cannot be dictated to by anybody."
Hours later, the meeting's chairman, Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez of Mexico, declared the meeting over, saying, "Unfortunately, we didn't achieve the advances we had proposed to achieve." He pledged to work toward completing negotiations in the future.
In the end, it was the diverging agendas of 146 member countries that split delegates beyond the point of repair.
Poor nations, many of which had banded together to play a key role in the negotiations, wanted to end the rich countries' agricultural subsidies.
European nations and Japan were intent on pushing four new issues that many poor countries saw as a complicated and costly distraction.
Many poor countries accused the United States and Europe of trying to bully poor nations into accepting trade rules they did not want.
"Trade ministers have been pressured, blackmailed," said Irene Ovonji Odida, a delegate from Uganda.
The United States said some countries were more interested in flowery speeches than negotiations, but didn't identify them.
"Some countries will now need to decide whether they want to make a point or whether they want to make progress," said the US trade representative, Robert Zoellick.
His comments appeared directed at a group of mostly poor nations -- often known as the Group of 20-plus -- that emerged as the major opposition to the US and European positions. The group represents most of the world's population and includes China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil.
Promethean Earl,
The trade picture is not as clear-cut as it appears. Check out the Progressive Policy Institute's piece on how third world nations complaining about Western trade barriers beggar-their-neighbors with punitive tariffs and protectionist levies. There's a link to it on my blog or go to www.ppionline.org/
Okay.
The problem as I see it is India and Bangladesh never claimed to have a free trade agreement with each other.
The Western Democracies have a nasty history of making great promises of economic growth based on free trade agreements, then undermining those agreements as soon as the promised growth takes place. Prtectionism is one thing; protectionism plus hypocrasy is another.