John Fredrick Parker
Donor
With the latest PoD (though preferably not after 2008), save the Doha Development Round.
I dont understand what it is.
Wikipedia said:The Doha Development Round or Doha Development Agenda (DDA) is the current trade-negotiation round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which commenced in November 2001. Its objective is to lower trade barriers around the world, which will help facilitate the increase of global trade. As of 2008, talks have stalled over a divide on major issues, such as agriculture, industrial tariffs and non-tariff barriers, services, and trade remedies. The most significant differences are between developed nations led by the European Union (EU), the United States (USA), and Japan and the major developing countries led and represented mainly by Brazil, China, India, South Korea, and South Africa. There is also considerable contention against and between the EU and the USA over their maintenance of agricultural subsidies—seen to operate effectively as trade barriers.
I think the real problem for the US administration is going to be getting it through Congress, especially once the President loses their fast track powers. Thanks to the way the US government is set up it doesn't matter how heavily behind it the White House is if enough members of Congress decide to block things for domestic political considerations.
How badly did (the executives of) any of these developed economies (US, EU, and Japan) want a deal whereby they would, collectively, par down their subsidies? Was Doha important at all to anyone of influence in the Bush Administration?
The problem in the US is that the subsidies in question are politically difficult to touch for a variety of reasons. The states that benefit most per capita are important in American national elections, and the subsidies at least in North America overwhelmingly are used a profit support program for major agribusinesses, several of which (particularly ADM and Monsanto) are enormous contributors to political campaigns. This combination makes cutting agricultural subsidies politically extremely difficult, which is a problem. Japan has a similar issue, as their agricultural producers hold a considerable amount of political power there as well.
Good thing that DOHA did not pass..
. Or it could be some other outcome. All we know, is that a DOHA deal would mean more opportunities for the poorest farmers in the world to sell their products to a truly world market. So yeah, saying "DOHA not passing was a good thing" -- bit of a bold statement.
Why would poor farmers have any opportunity at all to sell, they don't have the product, or the machinery or the marketing to engage in a "truly world market".
If this was true then why hasn’t the poor third world tailor or pot maker been selling their products in the USA or Europe?
Also, at least in the USA, I don’t think that products like millet or yams are either subsidized or have high tariffs, that is for things like wheat, corn, sugar, etc.
Actually the US have been pushing through many of these trade deals as agreements not as treaties. So instead of 2/3 vote in the Senate they need a majority in the Senate and House.Even with fast track authority, the US Senate still needs to vote "yes", etc.
Actually the US have been pushing through many of these trade deals as agreements not as treaties. So instead of 2/3 vote in the Senate they need a majority in the Senate and House.