Turn on thread page Beta

World Affairs- WTO Agreements - Farm Subsidies and Tariffs watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The WTO has reached a 'historic' agreement on new plans to continue the reduction of tariffs and subsidies and the main points of the new agreement are:

    -All 147 members of the World Trade Organisation have agreed on the basis for talks on a trade deal, but still have months of hard negotiations ahead

    -Rich countries have agreed to eliminate all forms of export farm subsidies but can keep some of their domestic support

    -The deal includes a "down payment" that would see an immediate 20 per cent cut in the maximum permitted payments by rich nations

    -Europe's multibillion-pound sugar industry is still outside the negotiations

    -West African states failed in their attempt to open separate negotiations over the US's $3bn (£1.65bn) of subsidies for its cotton-growers

    -Poorer countries will have to cut import barriers under which the highest get cut the most

    -Developing countries have to negotiate on rules to make customs procedures easier and less expensive for business< /li>

    What are peoples thoughts on this. To me the West is still failing to open up trade sufficiently to enable the Third-world a realistic opportunity to earn their way out of poverty, with the US's failure to cut cotton subsidies and the notable exclusion of the EUs sugar industry from any reductions, it appears they are merely paying lip service to the idea of free trade. And it does not appear to be solely the fault of the west as developing nations are also unwilling to cooperate fully with the freeing up of international trade, is this a mistake created by greed or a necessity on both sides of the table?

    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=546955
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The US was never going to agree to it, it's an incredible selfish country in my opinion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, whoever controls the US, they are still just in effect going to be puppets to the massive commercial corporations whose single aim is to make money at everyone elses expense.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It is ironic how the US goes on about free trade and yet continues to hinder free trade by imposing tariffs on imports and giving out subsidies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rob24601)
    Yeah, whoever controls the US, they are still just in effect going to be puppets to the massive commercial corporations whose single aim is to make money at everyone elses expense.
    What you have to ask yourself is this - is the US a country or is it the biggest corporation in the world?
    Personlay I've never liked the way the leadership in America handle things though.

    Back to the original issue - yeh I think that we have gotten somewhere (with cutting some of the subsidies) but its not going far enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The US was never going to agree to it, it's an incredible selfish country in my opinion
    Yeah, whoever controls the US, they are still just in effect going to be puppets to the massive commercial corporations whose single aim is to make money at everyone elses expense.
    It is ironic how the US goes on about free trade and yet continues to hinder free trade by imposing tariffs on imports and giving out subsidies.
    What you have to ask yourself is this - is the US a country or is it the biggest corporation in the world?
    Personlay I've never liked the way the leadership in America handle things though.
    Back to the original issue - yeh I think that we have gotten somewhere (with cutting some of the subsidies) but its not going far enough
    youre probably all right, but until you stop blindly discarding the rest of the Developed World for the US...i couldnt care to listen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Every country is looking after themselves, I hope no one is naive enough to believe that any nation signing this agreement didn't consider the consquences to their own country before they thought of the possible advantage for developing countries. The US are selfish, probable more selfish than most, but that dosen't mean they're the only administration looking after number one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    youre probably all right, but until you stop blindly discarding the rest of the Developed World for the US...i couldnt care to listen.
    True but the US carries so much political power that it can actually sabotage agreement like the Kyoto protocol and it therefore has a responsibily to not spend its life looking after number one and maybe try and help others/the environment
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    True but the US carries so much political power that it can actually sabotage agreement like the Kyoto protocol
    sabotage? the US didnt agree with it. yes, it has a great deal of influence, but at the same time it cant just accept everything for the sake of the Europeans or Asians or the South American nations etc, weakening its own position or to the detriment of American people. The US is a major player in world affairs, the Kyoto 'agreement(?!)' is pointless unless the whole world agrees with it. The US wants a vast proportion of countries to sign up to its abstinence funding, but you wouldnt think of calling European rejections of such as 'sabotage'. Why? because you happen to agree with the European standpoint?

    and it therefore has a responsibily to not spend its life looking after number one and maybe try and help others/the environment
    when the US helps others its blamed for playing policeman, or forcing American values on others. when a feasible and realistic proposal to combat global warming exists, or the evidence consistently suggest mankind poses a real threat to his environment, only one country will do, and will be able to do, anything about it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    sabotage? the US didnt agree with it. yes, it has a great deal of influence, but at the same time it cant just accept everything for the sake of the Europeans or Asians or the South American nations etc, weakening its own position or to the detriment of American people. The US is a major player in world affairs, the Kyoto 'agreement(?!)' is pointless unless the whole world agrees with it. The US wants a vast proportion of countries to sign up to its abstinence funding, but you wouldnt think of calling European rejections of such as 'sabotage'. Why? because you happen to agree with the European standpoint?



    when the US helps others its blamed for playing policeman, or forcing American values on others. when a feasible and realistic proposal to combat global warming exists, or the evidence consistently suggest mankind poses a real threat to his environment, only one country will do, and will be able to do, anything about it.
    The Kyoto agreement was for its own benefit though people probably didn't see it that way. By cutting emissions you are reducing the amount of carbon dioxide being fed into the atmosphere and thereby reducing the global warming effect which is a very serious threat though some may not believe it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    The Kyoto agreement was for its own benefit though people probably didn't see it that way. By cutting emissions you are reducing the amount of carbon dioxide being fed into the atmosphere and thereby reducing the global warming effect which is a very serious threat though some may not believe it
    im sure thats all true. but the US didnt see it as feasible or realistic or grounded on evidence they particuarly concurred with. the Kyoto agreement highlights three types of country. the first, a nation that will bear the overwhelming brunt of the costs, effort and reponsiblity for effecting such an agreement and one that was not willing to sign up to something based on the uncertainty those factors create. the second, a small backwater of a country, trying to get its foot in the door politically, with no financial accountability , no resource or intent to apply Kyoto but an equal seat at the bargaining table and a unique opportunity to get some political capital away from the US. the third, a nation knowing that its probably not feasible, but knows it will gain politically if it can provide sufficient rhetoric, stir up the diplomatic waters and then act bemused when the US vetoes it as anticipated...and then declare months later its nowhere near acheivable, "but we tried".
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 2, 2004
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.