| Do you think Doha talks will be successful this time? | |
|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2008 04:52 |   |
 | Yesterday, heated disagreements happened among those main parties at Doha round of trades talks. The US warns China and India insist to protect the farmers from the international competition and this might collapse the meeting. India still disagreed with some of the details, especially raising the tariff to protect the farmers. China condemns US for requiring China to open its cotton market but didn't promise to cut the subsidies to its cotton farmers. Well, it seems that the Doha meeting might fail again. In my view, it is normal to see it fails. You see, each country cares about its own benefits so that it is hard for them to reach an agreement. That's why the meeting has been held many times but hasn't made any progress. What do you think of this round Doha talks? Do you think the "participants" will make any achievement? |
| Jul 29, 2008 22:09 | #1 |
| Doha trade talks has ended with disagreements. In the nine days, they haven't made any break-through. As far as I know, Doha trade talks has been held for 7 years. However, there is no break-through that has been made so far. In my view, it is useless to hold such talks. As long as the disagreements exist, the Doha trade talks will never be successful. |
| Jul 30, 2008 21:39 | #2 |
| Keeping communication other than breaking up is success. Peoridically, Chinese Gov. sends a purchasing team to US ordering high value added products for balancing. |
| Aug 2, 2008 04:24 | #3 |
| success will takes time |
| Aug 2, 2008 09:22 | #4 |
| If the super power looks on interest of other country. |
| Aug 7, 2008 02:13 | #5 |
| At least they're talking.. but I doubt that big progress will soon be made... I've seen numerous trade disputes going on between US and Canada for years and that even was after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) established in 1984. Protectionism and just plain ignorance of treaties, laws and numerous rulings; the Super Power is not just military, but one very good at getting what it wants at the price it wants... Maybe one day, the world's food supply shortages and other major natural catastrophies caused by all the pollution we make doing that so lucrative international trading will bring us to a point where we'll have just no other choice than to work together in a fair way. Until then, our politicians are just holding cheap talks and having cigars while they're ignoring the growing cancer to our world that they're producing with their appetite for power and money. |
| Aug 7, 2008 19:31 | #6 |
| Al, Canada is expected to be as open-minded and far-visioned as its neighbour, AUn NZ and West Euro in foreign policy to China. Canada is really a nice land but a little bit behind its western brothers. |
| Aug 7, 2008 23:30 | #7 |
| Marrie: "Canada's a little bit behind its Western brothers": Please, please explain to me because I really don't see where Canada is behind or has to envy anything of other Western countries. Canada is an example to the world in showing that multiculturalism can work and even be the foundation of a great nation. In Canada, everyone is free to express him/her self, every opinion counts and is respected; everyone can do a difference and the whole country has strong values of understanding and building on the differences of the community members. And since we're at it, one thing that really disappoint me here in China is the fact that general opinion is so quickly changing..; all it takes is one bad or out of place comment from a (maybe stupid) foreign politician, that the whole China rage against that country. I understand that no country should interveen in China's internal affairs, but sometimes, there is nothing wrong in listening what others have to say, learn from other's experiences and just pretend that you agree andthat you will think about it... I say this in regards to Canadian leaders opening the door to a human rights discussion with China before and almost got all the ties broken with China by doing so... And by the way, AU, NZ and Western Europe is not reall Canada's neighbours; Canada is just North of the USA and Canadians are proud NOT to be like americans (U.S.). Just focus on futurre ecomonic growth and trade between country is not what I call far-visioned and open -minded... my whole point is that our greed is killing the planet; the environment is already f@$%k'ed up and we might even be too late to save it. Oil dependency, food and grain world's supply, fresh water supply; are just some of the major problems facing the world; this is just the beginning... and that is stuff that has been widely discuss by people in Canada for years...so where are we behind again?? |
| Aug 11, 2008 04:40 | #8 |
| GUEST7273 | Here is an article from FT which talked about Doha Rounds. Really worth reading! Perhaps, it has explained why Doha talks couldn't be successful. THE BLINDFOLDS THAT WRECKED A DEAL TO BOOST GLOBAL TRADE By Philip Stephens Friday, August 08, 2008 The Doha trade round has stalled. Again. In so far as anyone pays much attention, they will probably struggle to stifle a yawn. That is a pity. The deadlock will not see the international trading system crashing down about us. Yet the failure is more than a missed opportunity. It underscores a dangerous inability among rich and rising nations alike to recognise their individual in their mutual interest. Some, of course, are celebrating. Nicolas Sarkozy casts himself as the French president who will make his country's peace with the 21st century. The embrace of modernity, though, must not extend to anything that upsets a hugely costly agricultural policy designed for the 1950s. Mr Sarkozy's choice of words gives the game away. A truly confident leader would talk about meeting the challenges of globalisation: about equipping France, and indeed Europe, to draw further prosperity from an integrated world economy. Instead the French president's language betrays temerity. In spite of all its manifest strengths – economic, technological, cultural, political – France, it seems, cannot stand on its own feet. Europe's leaders must “protect” the continent from the ravages of globalisation. So indignant was Mr Sarkozy with the efforts of the supposedly neoliberal Peter Mandelson to forge a deal that at one point he demanded that the European Commission's trade negotiator leave Geneva for a public dressing down at the Elysée. Sensibly, Mr Mandelson declined. Perhaps, though, I am being unfair in singling out Mr Sarkozy. For all the efforts of the indefatigable Pascal Lamy (a free-trade Frenchman) as head of the World Trade Organisation, and Mr Mandelson's decision to negotiate at the limits of the EU mandate, the truth is that most of the big players in Geneva were happy to see the process collapse. |
| Aug 11, 2008 04:43 | #9 |
| GUEST7273 | Among rich nations, domestic politics militate against trade liberalisation. The wealthier emerging nations meanwhile are happier to keep the privileges they have got than see them extended to those lower on the development ladder. Doha has been a story with few heroes; though, in parenthesis, Britain's otherwise beleaguered prime minister, Gordon Brown, was among the small minority. In the event, hopes of a deal this week were scuppered by a stand-off between India and China on one side, the US on the other. The rising powers of Asia wanted a special protection mechanism for their farmers. The US refused. For the NGOs who lined up in the television studios to denounce George W. Bush and all his works, this was a classic case of the world's most powerful nation once again oppressing the poor. A procession of spokespeople for what used to be called aid agencies (do these organisations actually do aid any more?) denounced the Americans. |
| Aug 11, 2008 04:45 | #10 |
| GUEST7273 | In so far as fat subsidies for rich US (and European) farmers are unconscionable, they have a point. The US Congress has just passed a law pouring even more money into agriculture. The Bush administration's demand for market access in developing countries as the price for cutting its own farm support demonstrates an absence both of economic logic and good faith. As Mr Mandelson has pointed out many times, the industrialised world cannot talk seriously about a commitment to development as long as it locks poor farmers out of global food markets. But the breakdown was more complicated. The developing world scarcely speaks as one. India and China are as concerned to protect their markets from poorer nations as to keep out US multinationals. Brazil, another of the so-called Brics, was among the small group wanting a deal. Uruguay sided with Washington in demanding China and India open markets. The losers from the impasse will not be the prosperous, but some of the poorest. So it will be tempting for the big players to shrug their shoulders. The direct costs of failure – a successful Doha round might have added another $100bn, or one tenth of one per cent, to the world economy – look small in the scheme of things. Many existing tariffs are already below the maximums in the proposed agreement. This sanguine analysis misses a more important point. For the past few decades the opening of markets and growing economic interdependence have been a force for geopolitical stability as well as of rising economic welfare for the world's poorest. We learned at the beginning of the 20th century that globalisation offers no guarantee against war. But mutual economic dependence does provide a powerful incentive to settle political differences. |
Page 1 of 2 < Previous Next > Page:
Post a Reply to: Do you think Doha talks will be successful this time?
Copyright © 1998-2025 All rights reserved.