[GJM] Fw: [globalnetnews-summary] WTO talks collapse as tempers flare

[mary rose]

As I sit and poneer this message, the thoughts that flash
through my mind ask questions like: Is world trade really
sustainable? Particularly when we are facing the end of
cheap oil and thus the end of cheap transportation that
made world trade possible in the first place.

I'm also thinking of how, here on the Co-learner's list
we have discussed the facts that many businesses here
in the U.S. are supported by subsidies that make it possible
for them to undercut prices in the developing world and
essentially put producers there out of business, especially
the large agribusinesses like Cargill.

This is only an extension of the colonialization programs that
have been going on for hundreds of years, first by the
British, as they enjoyed an increased stanard of liviing due
to exploitation of India, and now the U.S. as exploitation
continues in other developing countries.

The question also arises as to whether or not the U.S.
could have become the most prosperous country in the
history of the world in just one generation, as documented
in historian Robert Sobel's book: "The Great Boom" if the
practices of colonialization, now called globalization were
not in effect.

With the practices involved in colonialization and globalization
have come the ecological devastation of the developing countries
as U.S. corporations were moving off shore in order to avoid the
stringency of the environmental protection laws that had been put
in place at home.

And now, as U.S. Americans are having to face the question as to
how much their lifestyle is effecting the rest of the world and the
environment collapse taking place, the rest of the world is demanding
to have their share of the luxurious lifestyle many Americans, if not all,.
have enjoyed for many years.

And, of course, none of this can be written about or discussed in the
mainstream media. But increasingly, the truth is beginning to out as
other countries begin to take a stand. This is not a pretty picture.  . . 
.
.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GlobalCirclenet" <webmaster at globalcircle.net>
To: <globalnetnews-summary at lists.riseup.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:17 PM
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] WTO talks collapse as tempers flare



(To change your settings or unsubscribe please go to
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/globalnetnews-summary)

Note the globalist perspective. Failure? Good.
----------------------------------------

WTO talks collapse as tempers flare
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008080596_tradetalks30.html

International talks aimed at ushering in a new era of free trade collapsed 
in Geneva on Tuesday during a bitter split between developed...

By Anthony Faiola and Rama Lakshmi

The Washington Post

International talks aimed at ushering in a new era of free trade collapsed 
in Geneva on Tuesday during a bitter split between developed and developing 
countries over the future shape of global commerce.

The failure after nine days of intense negotiations underscored what is 
likely to be the biggest challenge in coming years to expanding world trade: 
the reluctance of emerging juggernauts such as India and China to risk their 
newfound success by offering rich nations greater access to the hundreds of 
millions of consumers rising out of poverty in the developing world.

High-level delegations from the United States and the European Union showed 
fresh willingness at the World Trade Organization talks to make concessions 
that would have gradually curbed the subsidies and tariffs they have long 
employed to protect first-world farmers.

But India and China dug in their heels, insisting on the right to keep 
protecting their farmers while accusing the United States and other rich 
countries of exaggerating the generosity of their concessions.

"The breakdown of these talks is bad news for the world's businesses, 
workers, farmers and most importantly, the poor," said Thomas Donohue, 
president of the Washington-based U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"It's ironic that this blow ... came from two of the chief beneficiaries of 
worldwide trade. India and China are emerging powers, but with great power 
comes great responsibility. They missed an opportunity to show leadership as 
key players in the global trading system."

The result is what most experts see as at least a temporary mothballing of 
the Doha Round of trade talks, so named because a group of nations agreed to 
work toward dramatic new cuts in subsidies and trade tariffs in Qatar's 
capital of Doha back in 2001.

The talks have floundered for seven years.

The meeting of more than 35 nations had been described by officials as a "do 
or die" moment, with the lack of agreement postponing the $50 billion to 
$100 billion injection such a deal was expected give the global economy.

The sense that the failed talks may not get another chance anytime soon is 
linked to the pending exit of the pro-trade Bush administration, rising 
opposition to farm concessions in Europe and an upcoming changing of the 
guard of several key trade officials.

Some analysts said the spread of free trade for now is likely to shift 
toward more modest bilateral agreements, or the expansion of regional 
trading blocs such as South America's Mercosur and the Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations.

Yet even bilateral deals have faced stronger resistance during a growing 
global wave of protectionism, including in the United States, where free 
trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama are being held up in 
Congress.

advertising

"We are heading toward the fragmentation of the global trading system into 
individual trading blocs - regional and bilateral - which offer no guarantee 
for the economic benefits we have seen in the post-War era," said Randall 
Soderquist, senior trade program associate for the Center for Global 
Development.

The talks in Geneva at times took on a highly charged, personal tone that 
immediately cast the negotiations as a power struggle between the developed 
and developing worlds.

Within 24 hours of landing in Geneva nine days ago, Brazil's Foreign 
Minister Celso Amorim infuriated first-world negotiators, comparing their 
efforts to hype their proposed trade concessions to Nazi propaganda.

His comments drew sharp reprimands, particularly from U.S. Trade Ambassador 
Susan C. Schwab, the daughter of Jewish Holocaust survivors.

Yet Brazil would later show far more flexibility than India or China, 
casting the Asian nations as the principle holdouts.

Schwab said negotiators were "so close" last week in reaching an agreement. 
But the talks fell apart over the insistence by developing nations to 
reserve the right to protect their farming sectors against sudden surges in 
cheap food imports.

India's chief negotiator and commerce minister, Kamal Nath, may have played 
the biggest role in undoing the talks, repeatedly blocking attempts by 
developed nations to win greater access to India's burgeoning market.

Nath's inflexibility was cheered in India as a classic David-vs.-Goliath 
case.

"I come from a country where 300 million people live on 1 dollar a day and 
700 million people live on 2 dollars a day," Nath said.

"So it is natural for me, and in fact incumbent upon me, to see that our 
agricultural interests are not compromised. You don't require rocket science 
to decide between livelihood security and commercial interests."

Opposition to the talks had been building in India since June, when 35 
farmers groups from across that nation gathered in New Delhi to discuss the 
implications of the trade negotiations with trade and food activists.

They called upon wealthy nations to remove their farm subsidies, saying such 
assistance to first-world farmers denies a level-playing field to 
subsistence-farmer nations such as India.

The United States and Europe did offer what several experts described as the 
most significant concessions to reduce agricultural protections they have 
ever made.

The moves were taken in the hopes that developing nations would respond by 
reducing barriers for such manufactured goods as U.S. cars and German 
chemicals.

Instead, their offers were dismissed as not nearly enough.

"This is a very painful failure and a real setback for the global economy 
when we really needed some good news," Peter Mandelson, the European Union's 
trade commissioner, told reporters Tuesday.