WTO Trade Talks Collapse

[jdobbin]

Why did it fail and what might it mean?

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/...r=1&oref=slogin

[August1991]

Why did it fail and what might it mean?

The WTO Doha Round attempted the almost impossible: eliminating agricultural subsidies. It should be no surprise that it failed.

I think trade subsidies are ultimately a domestic political issue and the WTO is not the place to solve them. In the case of agricultural subsidies, the best way to deal with them is on the environmental front. Canadians subsidize and protect milk, pig, chicken farmers. Government subsidies and market management schemes encourage horrendous effects on the environment and on the food we eat. There is nothing natural in our food anymore.

For example, Canadians should be able to buy milk clearly identified as natural and produced without danger to the environment. At present, Canada's milk lobby makes such identification (labelling) illegal.

I don't want to hijack this thread but the WTO negotiations failed because of powerful farm lobbies in rich countries. Maybe the only way to stand up to such bullies is to take the "leftist/victim/urban card" out for a spin.

The clueless Old Left/unions seem to be doing that:

In the aftermath of the breakdown of recent world trade talks, representatives of the world's trade union movement and civil society organizations are wondering if, finally, World Trade Organization (WTO) members will adopt a new approach to international trade - one that puts the interests of people first.

Larry Brown, national secretary-treasurer of the National Union of Public and General Employees, says the time has come to change direction.

"What has been tried so far has been a failure," he says.

"More inequality in wealth, undemocratic backroom dealings, strong arm tactics by the world's powerful nations – these have been the norm for the WTO. It's not too late to change direction. Let's finally put the interests of people before those of corporations."

Link

The trade talks did not fail because corporations tried to rip people off. They failed because rich American/European farmers want protection and government money.

[geoffrey]

The same farm lobby that has us paying inflated milk and butter prices. This was really covered in excess on another thread, but it is the essence of the question.

It failed because there is a lot of money in the farm money, and the money only remains as long as such subsidies and tariffs exist. They'll fight tooth and nail to prevent the removal of trade barriers.

[jdobbin]

I think trade subsidies are ultimately a domestic political issue and the WTO is not the place to solve them. In the case of agricultural subsidies, the best way to deal with them is on the environmental front. Canadians subsidize and protect milk, pig, chicken farmers. Government subsidies and market management schemes encourage horrendous effects on the environment and on the food we eat. There is nothing natural in our food anymore.

I don't want to hijack this thread but the WTO negotiations failed because of powerful farm lobbies in rich countries. Maybe the only way to stand up to such bullies is to take the "leftist/victim/urban card" out for a spin.

The trade talks did not fail because corporations tried to rip people off. They failed because rich American/European farmers want protection and government money.

I know there are left led protests against the WTO but did they stop this round from going through? I remember seeing an analysis of the voting patterns of rural voters who were going to be affected by the Doha round and they were almost always conservative voters. In other words, despite the high visibility of left wing protests, it was the conservatives of the rural world, who put a stop to this round. At least that's how it seems. I'd like to see some more analysis first.

And I know about milk subsidies. How are pigs subsidized? I thought the U.S. tried to take a crack at Canada last year over this and were unsuccessful. And I know nothing about chickens.

Speaking of which, Canada won another round in the NAFTA on lumber. I wonder if that will enbolden lumber companies to resist the deal struck.

[jdobbin]

The same farm lobby that has us paying inflated milk and butter prices. This was really covered in excess on another thread, but it is the essence of the question.

It failed because there is a lot of money in the farm money, and the money only remains as long as such subsidies and tariffs exist. They'll fight tooth and nail to prevent the removal of trade barriers.

But how badly is Canada's market subsidized or protected aside from milk which is well documented.

And I know some commentators blamed this on liberals but the farm lobby is one of the more conservative groups out there.

[August1991]

We manage by production quota (and indirectly subsidize) eggs, chickens and turkeys.

As to pork, I was wrong to state that we have a supply management system in place. It appears that Canada exports alot of its pork to the US. Pig farming is particularly noxious to the environment and I wonder whether US environmental regulations for pig farming are more stringent than Canadian regulations.

Americans subsidize corn production and so Canadian pig farmers have access to cheap American corn feed.

[Guest Warwick Green]

International Trade Minister David Emerson signalled in June that Canada intends to ramp up its bilateral trade deal negotiations even if WTO talks are stalled, noting that this country has signed one deal in the past five years while the U.S. has approved seven agreements with 12 countries since 2001.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/Business/home

We've been asleep at the switch here. It's been pretty clear that the Doha round would not be productive but we have not been aggressive in going after bilateral deals. I know there have been talks (Singapore, the Central American Four) but we have not been pushing ahead like the US has.

[jdobbin]

We manage by production quota (and indirectly subsidize) eggs, chickens and turkeys.

As to pork, I was wrong to state that we have a supply management system in place. It appears that Canada exports alot of its pork to the US. Pig farming is particularly noxious to the environment and I wonder whether US environmental regulations for pig farming are more stringent than Canadian regulations.

Americans subsidize corn production and so Canadian pig farmers have access to cheap American corn feed.

Environmental regulations are not considered subsidies. And I have never heard that Canada has been more lax than the U.S. when it comes to pork production.

And American susbsidies on corn can't be considered a subsidy to Canadian prok producers.

Are marketing boards considered subsidies under NAFTA and the present guidelines of the WTO?

[Toro]

I know there are left led protests against the WTO but did they stop this round from going through? I remember seeing an analysis of the voting patterns of rural voters who were going to be affected by the Doha round and they were almost always conservative voters. In other words, despite the high visibility of left wing protests, it was the conservatives of the rural world, who put a stop to this round. At least that's how it seems. I'd like to see some more analysis first.

It was the rural world of France and the United States.

Speaking of which, Canada won another round in the NAFTA on lumber. I wonder if that will enbolden lumber companies to resist the deal struck.

This was expected so probably not.

[August1991]

We've been asleep at the switch here. It's been pretty clear that the Doha round would not be productive but we have not been aggressive in going after bilateral deals. I know there have been talks (Singapore, the Central American Four) but we have not been pushing ahead like the US has.

I agree that we should negotiate on a bilateral basis. (In fact, I think we should negotiate on a unilateral basis. The federal government should simply drop all our barriers to international trade - regardless of what other countries do.)

Incidentally, the WTO is a completely misunderstood organization. The WTO is just a venue for countries to negotiate bilateral agreements. Once a bilateral agreement is in place, other countries can then copy its provisions. The WTO isn't a restaurant; it's more like the chairs and tables of a food court.

It was the rural world of France and the United States.

Exactly. But Toro I wouldn't limit it to French and American farmers. Until politicians are prepared to take on these strong farm lobbies, agriculture will be excluded from trade agreements.

Environmental regulations are not considered subsidies. And I have never heard that Canada has been more lax than the U.S. when it comes to pork production.

And American susbsidies on corn can't be considered a subsidy to Canadian pork producers.

Are marketing boards considered subsidies under NAFTA and the present guidelines of the WTO?

Whether they are considered subsidies or not is an irrelevant legal precision. The bigger question is whether Canadians want the environment harmed by pig urine effluence. At present, Americans get the pork and we get the piss.

As to corn, Americans subsidize their corn production and Canadian corn producers have so far been unsuccessful in obtaining protection. I think th ereason is that Canadian pig producers (buyers of cornfeed) are a stronger lobby than Canadian corn producers.

There is no lobby like a farm lobby when it comes to putting its head in the trough. The farm lobby gets truly vicious when anyone attempts to call them on it. They can be meaner than a junkyard dog protecting its turf.

I think the only way to confront the farm lobby is on environmental issues.

[jdobbin]

Whether they are considered subsidies or not is an irrelevant legal precision. The bigger question is whether Canadians want the environment harmed by pig urine effluence. At present, Americans get the pork and we get the piss.

As to corn, Americans subsidize their corn production and Canadian corn producers have so far been unsuccessful in obtaining protection. I think th ereason is that Canadian pig producers (buyers of cornfeed) are a stronger lobby than Canadian corn producers.

There is no lobby like a farm lobby when it comes to putting its head in the trough. The farm lobby gets truly vicious when anyone attempts to call them on it. They can be meaner than a junkyard dog protecting its turf.

I think the only way to confront the farm lobby is on environmental issues.

Is it really the pork lobby that is preventing a challenge on corn? I hadn't heard that.

I believe environmental challenges to farm lobbies are separate issues to subsidizing farming.

[Toro]

The appeal to farm subsidies are

1.) Security of food supply.

2.) A way of life

3.) Everyone else has subsidies so to survive, we must have subsidies too.