BBC news is reporting that multilateral trade talks in Geneva have ended without consensus. The epicenter of the rift blocking resolution was that of market access. While the US and EU push for greater access to provide services to the fast emerging economies of India and China, the two developing countries are instead focused on fighting growing disparities between their wealthy and poor populations by pushing for better access to US and EU agricultural markets.
In response to US complaints that India and China are being too restrictive with their markets and overprotective of their farmers, India's Minister of Commerce Nath responded by saying, “The US is looking at enhancing its commercial interests whereas I am looking at protecting the livelihood of farmers.” Chinese Commerce Minister Chen agrees, and backed him up by relaying that the US was “asking a price as high as heaven.”
Is Nath getting at something? Where are we drawing the line? Are we really prioritizing commercial opportunity over social responsibility? Can we really justify that the poorest populations of developing countries should help us recover costs in the face of a recession that is impacting the global community? Why aren't we applying more pressure on India's software industry, or China's manufacturing industry to be fairer about more evenly spreading things around?
And, it was reported that the US, India, and China were unable to agree on tariff thresholds for farm import rules that would buffer farmers from unforseen economic hardships like price drops and import surges. The US and EU would of course protest to eating these costs, meanwhile forking over top dollar for goods that have been hiked up in response to rising fuel and food prices, and overall inflation.
Interestingly, analysts of this BBC article are anticipating that this collapsed round of trade talks signals the beginning of the end of multilateral trade agreements. They instead expect that “nations may pursue dual agreements with partner nations, preferring to focus on their own requirements rather than a more common negotiating goal.” Is this really the case? Even less will be accomplished if everyone takes on a free-for-all attitude. It will be less about intentions or contributions and more about who you know.
. . . will provide an update and/or formal statement as trade ministers officially close the round.
