Registered user login:

Fair trade through Doha

Gareth Thomas

Published 18 July 2008

It's make or break on a Doha deal worth 120 billion euros per year, argues Trade and Development Minister Gareth Thomas, in a call to resist the "forces of protectionism" in the US and elsewhere

We are witnessing the biggest restructuring of global economic life since the Industrial Revolution. Over the next 25 years the world economy will double in size, creating a billion new jobs worldwide, offering untold opportunity to individuals, communities and nations.

However, not everyone around the world has benefited from globalisation so far, and while many have been lifted out of poverty, plenty are still unable to meet their basic needs. The response of some in the face of this crisis is to pull up the drawbridge, to retreat into protectionism - indeed this is a response which is gaining ground. Historically though, countries that have grown, prospered and reduced poverty have done so because they have become part of the global economy and opened up their markets to trade. Take East Asia. Over the last 30 years, its share of world trade has trebled while some 500m people were lifted out of poverty.

If we are to resist the forces of protectionism and at the same time make trade work for the poorest, the challenge we all face is nothing less than to transform our global trading system and make it fit for purpose in the 21st Century. Intensifying global trade and economic integration could bring unprecedented opportunities in the 21st century and the current Doha world trade negotiations have a major role in making this happen.

Why does Doha matter? Because in a time of recent economic uncertainty, a Doha deal could boost the global economy by 120 billion euros per year. Doha could bring €30bn each year for the EU economy alone.

A deal will strengthen the EU economy through improving business competitiveness, creating new jobs, and benefiting consumers. It will create further opportunities for EU companies in overseas markets.

But most significantly, a Doha deal will bring greater access into the world’s richest markets for the poorest countries to export their agricultural goods, textiles and clothing – allowing them to trade their way out of poverty.

Developing countries lose about €12 billion a year in agricultural income from protectionism and subsidies in developed countries. A deal could help to lift millions out of poverty and make great gains in reaching the Millennium Development Goals.

But to get there all WTO members need to commit to securing a successful outcome to the upcoming ministerial gathering. The US will need to give ground and demonstrate that its commitment to closing the deal will be made a reality. This means significant cuts to agricultural subsidies, particularly on cotton.

The greatest gains for Europe will not come from protecting agriculture. Consumers across the EU will benefit from lower agricultural tariffs, while businesses will gain from greater market access for industrial goods. The EU will gain improved market access for its vehicles, medicines, chemicals and machinery into both developed and developing countries.

And developing countries need to show commitment to closing the deal now. They have much to gain from what’s already on the table now: increased market access in agricultural and industrial goods; reductions in agricultural subsidies; the ending of all forms of export support by 2013; and 97 per cent duty free, quota free (DFQF) access for the least developed countries.

The Doha negotiations need to be successfully concluded now. Not only because of the lost income and lost opportunities that would result from failing to secure a deal this year. If we don't secure agreement on the headlines of a deal in the WTO Ministerial, we will not get a conclusion to the Round for 3 years or more. The US and Indian elections, and a new European Commission next year mean that trade talks would not start again for almost 2 years if at all. And we cannot be sure that we would be able to capture the progress that’s been made up to now if we were to start again two years from now. This deal may never be on the table again.

Further, failure to conclude the WTO’s first trade Round would be a serious blow to the credibility of one of the pillars of the multilateral system and the global community's ability to face up to the global challenges of today and tomorrow. Failure to secure agreement would represent a missed opportunity to prevent a drift into greater protectionism, and crucially, to lift millions out of extreme poverty that still blights too much of our world.

Time is running out. In Geneva next week, we will be engaged in an historic opportunity which, if seized, could see the world take a giant step toward a fairer and more open global trading system. The significance of what lies within our grasp cannot be overstated. But, neither can the scale of lost opportunity and wasted human potential if we fail.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

7 comments from readers

gnuneo
18 July 2008 at 17:38

gareth: i hope you are aware that it is not the neo-liberal approach to 'free markets' that develops economies? It is far more important who *owns* the companies, where do the profits of the trade go to?

SE asia did not 'just develop' because they 'opened their borders to trade', they had national policies of restricting ownership, they had national cultures of investing in their own firms, they invested heavily in education, health and other social measures, so the money coming in through trade pumped around the national economy and led to higher living standards.

as a simple contrast, imagine if a 'free trade' agreement was made with the slave-holding US South? Would it increase the living standards of the slaves? Would it increase rights, freedoms and responsibilities? Would it lead to greater development in the South? Or would it have just made the 'owners' more wealthy? If you're in doubt as to the answer to this question, just look at Africa, both colonial and for most Africans post-colonial as well.

the concepts of 'free trade' and 'free markets' as created by the classical liberals, were predicated upon the economic model that saw ownership and 'bourgeoisiement' becoming widespread amongst the People, not an economic model that pits Tysons against Gandhis, allowing the 'victor' to literally eat the resources of the 'loser' to get even stronger!

in social terms, this so-called 'liberalism', is equivalent to handing baseball bats to everyone, and saying its OK to smash anyone over the head, as its an "equal playing field" - what kind of a 'liberal' society would come out of that?!?

it is true that 'free markets' are the most efficient at allocating economic resources - but they are not free when effectively global monopolists are in control, just as they were not free when the Lord in his Castle decided economic policy. If the global economic forums were really interested in creating/spreading wealth and development, they would be supporting measures like the Grameen Bank, FairTrade, and boosting cooperative producers/distributors.

adam smith is turning in his grave with the violence the neo-libs are doing to his theories.

Pierre
19 July 2008 at 15:39

Beware, "free trade" is relly nothing more than economic terrorism.

gnuneo
19 July 2008 at 23:38

peirre: "free trade", is the economic equivalent of "democracy".

Pierre
20 July 2008 at 01:23

The American form of"democracy " is indeed economic terrorism.

You are correct.........................

gnuneo
20 July 2008 at 01:52

its like "free speech" - there's no real "free speech" when the media is controlled by a few Barons, or the State - the lone individual will always get shouted down.

in "free trade", there is no real "free trade" when its small farmers pitted against global agribusiness.

but that doesn't mean the principles behind "free speech" and "free trade" are not meaningful and highly worthwhile, only that there are certain factors that must be there to support them - such as decentralised media (the internet is now a major democratising factor in our societies), and cooperatives/capitalist partnerships for free trade.

so yes, your comparison is valid, but we have a saying... "Don't throw out the Baby with the Bath-water"...

taghioff.info
20 July 2008 at 21:07

"Over the next 25 years the world economy will double in size, creating a billion new jobs worldwide, offering untold opportunity to individuals, communities and nations."

Which also means a doubling in natural resource usage. So what's the plan, we fight CO2 emissions on one hand, whilst promoting them with the other, not joined up government really is it.

"Historically though, countries that have grown, prospered and reduced poverty have done so because they have become part of the global economy and opened up their markets to trade."

Only once their industries had grown strong enough to compete via protectionist policies. Read "drawing up the ladder" by Ha Joon Chang.

"Failure to secure agreement would represent a missed opportunity to prevent a drift into greater protectionism, and crucially, to lift millions out of extreme poverty that still blights too much of our world."

Trickle-down does not work. No, really, it doesn't.

Despite 9% growth rates, 80% of Indians still cannot afford 2400 calories of the cheapest rice per day. The work of Indian Economist Utsa Patnaik, who explains how the government statistics have been fudged, has been headline news in India, so this Neo-Liberal myth is collapsing. You can see the numbers for yourself at:

http://www.networkideas.org/featart/apr2004/Republic_Hunger....

With climate change on the way, what we need is an agreement that will protect the poor, who are left out of the benefits of trade, but must face its environmental consequences. Otherwise we are allowing Genocide through

Global negligence.

gnuneo
22 July 2008 at 03:21

""Over the next 25 years the world economy will double in size, creating a billion new jobs worldwide, offering untold opportunity to individuals, communities and nations."

Which also means a doubling in natural resource usage."

tag good buddy, that is not inevitable. We can instead turn to making better QUALITY products, products that last longer, use less limited resources, or recycled resources. If we weren't wasting trillions of dollars every year on arms, the Human Race could already have these improvements in place.

unfortunately, some less-than-Humans see the possibility of using arms to gain for themselves great wealth, no matter the consequences for the majority.

rest of your post i agree with 100%. :)

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Are your savings now safe?