The United States last week proposed that stalled World Trade Organization talks be restarted this year with a commitment to significant movement on farm subsidies and a promise to negotiate an end date for export subsidies.
“I do not want 2004 to be a lost year for the WTO negotiations,” U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick said in a Jan. 11 letter to all WTO country trade ministers.
He said talks that stalled in Mexico in September should be restarted, a commitment should be made to end export subsidies by a date to be negotiated and compromises on access and domestic subsidies should start.
Read Also
Anti-separatist movement targets rural Alberta
Former deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk’s anti-separatism Alberta Forever Canada petition campaign expects to run full steam ahead into the province’s farming regions
“It has been clear that an ambitious result in agriculture is essential for this (overall) negotiation to proceed and succeed,” he wrote.
He suggested that ministers gather before the end of 2004 in Hong Kong to inject some political direction into the talks. It has been expected that the earliest ministers would reconvene after the failure in Mexico would be late 2005.
Around the world, trade officials hailed Zoellick’s letter as a good sign. They expected the Americans to retreat from trade negotiations during an election year when protectionist promises are the norm. WTO director general Supachai Panitchpakdi said it was a “most important signal” from a newly proactive U.S.
In Ottawa, there were mixed reactions. International trade minister Jim Peterson said it was a clear signal that the U.S. supports the WTO negotiation and global trade.
“Canada is particularly pleased that the U.S. supports setting a date for the elimination of all export subsidies in agriculture, as this is a long-standing Canadian objective.”
However, Peterson said in a statement issued in Ottawa that Canada disagrees with Zoellick’s insistence that one goal must be “meaningful disciplines on the special privileges of state trading enterprises.”
Chief agriculture negotiator Steve Verheul was underwhelmed by the American proposal. He said there was little new in the letter.
“I think it should be seen and will be seen largely as an attempt by the U.S. to position itself as a player that wants to move ahead, even though domestic politics might dictate otherwise,” he said.
Verheul said the proposal for a 2004 meeting of ministers is impractical because Hong Kong likely could not organize it that quickly. Late this year could mark a change in trade personnel in several key WTO members including the European Union and there would be unease about staging another ministerial meeting that might collapse as the Cancun meeting failed.
“I think this is a largely political move.”
Meanwhile, domestic U.S. farm support for trade liberalization politics became more complicated last week when the American Farm Bureau, aligned with the Republican administration and a traditional supporter of trade liberalization deals, voted narrowly at its annual meeting to support future trade deals only if import-sensitive U.S. farm sectors are protected from cheaper imports.
