WTO Concerned Over Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements

Data Transmission Network Corporation ^ | 12/21/04 | Data Transmission Network Corporation

[hedgetrimmer]

OMAHA (DTN) -- The head of the World Trade Organization raised concern over the rising number of bilateral and regional trade agreements, citing the development as a "significant challenge" to the multilateral trading system.

WTO Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi noted that 21 such agreements were notified to the WTO between January and August 2004 alone, increasing the total number of notified agreements to more than 200.

The continued rise makes preferential discriminatory trade relations "an ever more established and perhaps irreversible feature of the international trading system," a report warned.

[hedgetrimmer]

Oh well,per postings yesterday, maybe the WTO does care. But look at what the great system is accomplishing. The opposite of what it has said it wanted to do.

But saying one thing when you really mean something else is a tried and true technique used by communists to trick the people into cooperating until its too late to get out.

[hedgetrimmer]

FYI

[BenLurkin]

Guess they are surpised to find that the "new world order" is NOT the same as "one world government".

[LowCountryJoe]

FYI:

Disband the WTO ~ by Llewellyn Rockwell

Do you argree with the piece, Yes or No?

[kaylar]

Here's an article from 2001 complaining about the same thing-the WTO "endangered" by free trade pacts between nations or within blocs .

[hedgetrimmer]

World Bank cautions India on trade pacts:
[Business India]: New Delhi, Dec 8 : After the World Trade Organisation (WTO), it was the World Bank's turn to caution India against causing market distortions while concluding bilateral and regional trade pacts.

Regional pacts benefit some developing countries, but it is also imperative to keep them open and transparent so that they did not penalise other countries by diverting trade, two senior economists with the World Bank said Wednesday.

Uri Dadush and Richard Newfarmer of the International Trade Department of the Washington-based multilateral funding institution said energies must be trained on concluding the current round of talks at the WTO.

Such multilateral openings held the promise of greater potential gains to all developing countries, they said, while launching the Global Economic Prospects 2005 here.

At an economic summit here Tuesday, WTO Director General Supachai Panitchpakdi had said India should train its energies on multilateral trade negotiations rather than regional and bilateral pacts.

"Regional trade agreements and free trade agreements contribute only 10 percent towards reduction in trade barriers," Supachai said.

"But multilateral agreements reduce trade barriers by 25 percent, while the remaining 65 percent comes from autonomous liberalisation from one's own country."

According to the World Bank report, regional trade agreements are most effective when they complement a unilateral and multilateral trade strategy and anchor domestic reforms programmes to improve competitiveness and reduce poverty.

The report says the key ingredients of such pacts include low external border barriers, promotion of new cross-border competition, non-restrictive rules of origin, few product exemptions, and more open services markets.

Effective regional trade pacts can help reduce regional political tensions, exploit economies of scale in infrastructure provision and lead to joint programmes to improve border crossings.

The report also said South Asia has a special interest in strengthening the multilateral system since most gains are to be made when the countries in the region get access to world markets.

The rules based multilateral system is also considered essential for South Asia's trade growth because its exports are sensitive, the report added.

--Indo-Asian News Service

***

Cracks in the armor? Now the World Bank is weighing in.

[LowCountryJoe]

Good, I prefer regional trade deals and market discrimination that doesn't break any rules...barriers tend to be lowered in a more market-force-driven manner. On the other hand the binding mechanism that the WTO has and its dispute settlement process is the sacrifice that is made. It would be nice to see these thing in the regional agreements.

[LowCountryJoe]

This is great news that you keep finding and reading these things...knowledge is key. Before you know it, you're going to be a convert. One of these days it will all click for you and you'll see the true wisdom in the market's embracement.

[hedgetrimmer]

Before you know it, you're going to be a convert

So you're not troubled at all that the WTO is a UN organization? That the WTO promotes sustainable development? That sustainable development enslaves free people for a "future generation" that is unnamed?

[LowCountryJoe]

I'm not troubled at all that the WTO (not a UN organization) has been used as a tool so that the majority of countries could witness the benefits of trade and now sign on to regional agreements that allow for discrimination to be used. The downside, however, is that I'm out aware of any mechanisms that allow for reversion to protectionist ways it is a trade off and for that purpose the WTO has its act together. It's a trade off.

Say, I thought you said that the U.S. has no power or influence in within the WTO. Say, you also seem to duck out of threads where you cannot keep up with your own hypocrisy or the well reasoned statements that we (the trade advocates) throw back at you. Why is that?

[hedgetrimmer]

I'm not troubled at all that the WTO (not a UN organization) has been used as a tool so that the majority of countries could witness the benefits of trade

The WTO is a subsidiary of the UN. The UN was founded by communists to create a global communist government. Control of trade by global communists/socialists works to move the world toward that aim. Your admission that you are not troubled by the UN connection to global trade is very telling about your commitment to America and your fellow citizens.

You haven't made any well reasoned statements about why America should abdicate its sovereignty and wealth to be put under the thumb of a bunch of socialists. Protecting your life, your livelihood and your culture is good. Throwing it away because someone has told you that protection is a bad word, is just plain silly.