Friday, March 29, 2024
05:24 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > CSS Compulsory Subjects > Current Affairs > Current Affairs Notes

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Friday, October 28, 2005
Amoeba's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: AppreciationCSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CSS 2007
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 444 Times in 59 Posts
Amoeba is on a distinguished road
Default Wto : World Trade Organisation

10. WTO : WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is among the most powerful, and one of the most secretive international bodies on earth. It is rapidly assuming the role of global government, as 134 nation-states, including the U.S., have ceded to its vast authority and powers. The WTO represents the rules-based regime of the policy of economic globalization. The central operating principal of the WTO is that commercial interests should supersede all others. Any obstacles in the path of operations and expansion of global business enterprise must be subordinated. In practice these "obstacles" are usually policies or democratic processes that act on behalf of working people, labor rights, environmental protection, human rights, consumer rights, social justice, local culture, and national sovereignty.

The organization

The WTO’s overriding objective is to help trade flow smoothly, freely, fairly and predictably.The main features are as follows:

* Administering trade agreements

* Acting as a forum for trade negotiations

* Settling trade disputes

* Reviewing national trade policies

* Assisting developing countries in trade policy issues, through technical assistance and training programmes

* Cooperating with other international organizations

Structure:

The WTO has nearly 150 members, accounting for over 97% of world trade. Around 30 others are negotiating membership.

Decisions are made by the entire membership. This is typically by consensus. A majority vote is also possible but it has never been used in the WTO, and was extremely rare under the WTO’s predecessor, GATT. The WTO’s agreements have been ratified in all members’ parliaments.

The WTO’s top level decision-making body is the Ministerial Conference which meets at least once every two years.

Below this is the General Council (normally ambassadors and heads of delegation in Geneva, but sometimes officials sent from members’ capitals) which meets several times a year in the Geneva headquarters. The General Council also meets as the Trade Policy Review Body and the Dispute Settlement Body.

At the next level, the Goods Council, Services Council and Intellectual Property (TRIPS) Council report to the General Council.

Numerous specialized committees, working groups and working parties deal with the individual agreements and other areas such as the environment, development, membership applications and regional trade agreements.

Developing countries

Development and trade

Over three quarters of WTO members are developing or least-developed countries. All WTO agreements contain special provision for them, including longer time periods to implement agreements and commitments, measures to increase their trading opportunities and support to help them build the infrastructure for WTO work, handle disputes, and implement technical standards.

The 2001 Ministerial Conference in Doha set out tasks, including negotiations, for a wide range of issues concerning developing countries. Some people call the new negotiations the Doha Development Round.

Before that, in 1997, a high-level meeting on trade initiatives and technical assistance for least-developed countries resulted in an “integrated framework” involving six intergovernmental agencies, to help least-developed countries increase their ability to trade, and some additional preferential market access agreements.

A WTO committee on trade and development, assisted by a sub-committee on least-developed countries, looks at developing countries’ special needs. Its responsibility includes implementation of the agreements, technical cooperation, and the increased participation of developing countries in the global trading system

Technical assistance and training

The WTO organizes around 100 technical cooperation missions to developing countries annually. It holds on average three trade policy courses each year in Geneva for government officials. Regional seminars are held regularly in all regions of the world with a special emphasis on African countries. Training courses are also organized in Geneva for officials from countries in transition from central planning to market economies.

The WTO set up reference centres in over 100 trade ministries and regional organizations in capitals of developing and least-developed countries, providing computers and internet access to enable ministry officials to keep abreast of events in the WTO in Geneva through online access to the WTO’s immense database of official documents and other material. Efforts are also being made to help countries that do not have permanent representatives in Geneva.

Pakistan and the WTO:

Pakistan agreed to join WTO in 1994, one of the benefits of which is the integration of the textile sector into General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT). Looking at 2005, people mostly believe that the major impact of WTO on Pakistan would again be on the textile sector. However, WTO comprises several protocols and agreements focussing on various sectors and have different implications for different sectors and thus the impact might not just be limited to the textile sector. For example, a few subjects or agreements signed by the government mentioned below show which sectors will be the most affected:

1) Improved access to foreign markets (reduction/binding of tariffs, abolition of quotas)

2) Subsidies, countervailing and anti-dumping measures

3) Agreement on Textiles and Clothing

4) Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

5) Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs)

6) Agreement on Agriculture
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lahore
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 27 Times in 12 Posts
Chilli is on a distinguished road
Default WTO meeting and Pakistan

WTO meeting and Pakistan
By Shahid Javed Burki
Dawn-03-01-2006


LAST week, I provided an overview of the process that led to the discussions at Hong Kong aimed at further improvements in the multilateral trading system. At issue were a series of actions the developed world had promised it would take to create a system that did not discriminate against the world’s poorer nations.

For most of developing countries what mattered most was the elimination of protective measures that kept the farmers in rich countries in agriculture producing the products in which the developing world had a clear comparative advantage.

What was the outcome of Hong Kong? This question has produced two answers. According to Prof Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia University who is a leading exponent of multilateralism in trade, the summit was a great success. It was a success for the simple reason that it did not produce a deadlock among so many different trading interests represented at Hong Kong.

Bhagwati is also pleased that one of the decisions taken at Hong Kong was the agreement to create a new global financing facility that would provide “aid for trade”. He has argued for the establishment of such a facility for a long time suggesting that one way of appeasing the potential losers from the furtherance of multilateralism is to help them adjust to free and open trade.

The other view to which I subscribe is that only small steps were taken at Hong Kong; the objective was to save the talks from collapse and hope that time will narrow the considerable differences that remain among important trading nations. This is unlikely to happen in the time available. The current dialogue must be concluded by the end of 2006 since the authority given to President George W. Bush to negotiate a deal will expire in the middle of 2007 and is not likely to be renewed. I don’t believe much can be achieved in the short time that is available unless Europe, America and large developing countries are prepared to accept some fundamental changes in their trading systems.

How would Hong Kong’s conclusions affect Pakistan? What was the position taken by Pakistan at the meetings and why did it differ from the one assumed by much of the developing world? Pakistan went to the trade summit with the belief that its economic future depends on its ability to create a larger market share in textiles and that in textiles the United States and the European Union will remain the dominant markets for many years to come. I question both assumptions. It is not a sound economic strategy to put all economic eggs in the textile basket and it is equally imprudent to ignore the fact that the fastest developing markets in the world are in Pakistan’s immediate neighbourhood and not in distant Europe and America. Reading global economic trends from a static angle and not from a dynamic perspective is a big mistake. Looking at the world from a more dynamic perspective should have resulted in Pakistan pursuing a different approach at Hong Kong than the one it actually followed. Before indicating what should have been that approach I will provide a quick account of the mini-steps that were taken at the meeting in order to save the talks from total collapse.

The previous rounds of negotiations had made significant progress in reducing the level of tariffs on industrial products particularly among developed countries. Developing countries were permitted to maintain higher tariffs in order to give them the time to prepare their industries for competition with rich countries. Before Hong Kong, there was pressure on ‘more developed’ developing countries to lower their tariffs if not for the goods produced in developed countries than at least for the products of less developed countries. There was a demand that countries like Brazil, China, India and South Africa that had well developed industrial sectors should grant preferential access to less developed countries.

However, rich countries did not make much progress in further splitting the developing world. There was agreement that developed countries would not demand from the developing world more than they were prepared to give themselves. Rich countries, given the way they had handled trade in textiles and clothing for more than four decades, were playing on a weak wicket. Developing countries forced them to concentrate their attention on the opening up of the sector of agriculture.

After a series of whole night sessions that engaged most of the ministers who were present at the meeting, Pascal Lamy was able to come out of Hong Kong with a declaration that provided nothing more than a hint of progress. The only achievement was to keep the talks alive. Another failure after the debacle at Seattle in 1999 and Cancun in 2003 would have killed the Doha round of negotiations and probably also killed the World Trade Organization. The ministers made little tangible progress.

Those representing developing countries were able to secure a promise from the developed countries that agricultural export subsidies would be abolished by end 2013. There was an additional promise that a substantial part of the subsidies would be scrapped before 2011 and that there would be a parallel elimination of indirect subsidies. The choice of the timetable was forced on Hong Kong by the budgetary cycle followed by the European Union. The EU now follows a seven-year budgetary cycle. Instead of going through the pain of agreeing on a budget every year, it adopts fiscal parameters every seven years. This was done at a summit of the EU leaders held shortly before the meeting in Hong Kong which in itself is an indication that for Europe promoting integration in Europe has a much higher priority than promoting multilateralism in trade. The EU could have waited for the outcome of the Hong Kong meeting before setting its own budgetary policy. Instead, it chose to dictate to the WTO its own timetable. Since the next round of budgetary talks will take place in Brussels only in 2012, the EU was not prepared to accept any WTO deadline that came before that time. Hence the choice of 2013 as the deadline for the removal of agricultural subsidies.

Agricultural subsidies take several forms including export credits, food aid and trading through state enterprises. It was agreed that in the coming months, WTO member nations will agree on the value of indirect subsidies since at Hong Kong they were unable even to define state policies that could be described as subsidies. Governments pledged that they would also draw up a timetable for phasing out subsidies.

The Europeans, led by France, had declared that any attempt to force them to drastically reduce subsidies could mean the end of the Doha round. At Hong Kong, the Europeans agreed to a three tier classification which placed them at the top, the United States in the middle and all other nations at the bottom. The members with the highest subsidies — the Europeans — agreed to cut the trade distorting subsidies the most.

Having agreed to this qualification, governments will need to determine the size of the cuts and to devise rules to stop them from reclassifying subsidies into categories that could shelter them from future cuts. This is an area in which Pakistan could benefit if it changed the structure of its economy to reflect fully its natural advantage.

A multi-tier formula agreed at Hong Kong set bigger cuts in higher tariff, smaller cuts for “sensitive” products produced in developed countries and exemption for “special” products grown in developing countries. A mechanism was also agreed upon that would allow poor nations to raise duties in case there was a surge in imports following the implementation of the tariff structure at the conclusion of the Doha round. These agreements notwithstanding, a great deal of work remains to be done in 2006. WTO members must decide in the coming months on the size of tariff cuts and on the number and treatment of “sensitive” and “special” products. For a country such as Pakistan the Doha round must produce a sizable market access for the various fruit, vegetables and flowers it can grow for export to developed country markets.

The Hong Kong negotiators dealt with the sensitive subject of cotton subsidies by giving concession only to African countries and to least developed nations but not to countries such as Pakistan. They agreed to eliminate subsidies in 2006 and grant unrestricted access to the countries in these two categories. The United States will further cut its $4 billion subsidy to cotton growers and also promised to reduce its farm support programme for cotton producers.

The process begun at Hong Kong aimed at bringing trade in agricultural products into the multilateral framework was perhaps the most notable achievement of the trade talks. Pakistan adopted a different posture; it decided to pursue market access in textile as its main objective. As such it showed little interest in the development of trade in agriculture. To neglect the opportunities agriculture offers and to concentrate entirely on developing long-distance foreign markets in textiles is to neglect Pakistan’s real comparative advantage in favour of a sector that is over-crowded with competitors and the development of which in Pakistan was the result of faulty policies adopted in the past rather than the exploitation of the country’s real potential.

Before they met in Hong Kong, WTO members had agreed to extend the deadline for the poorest countries to comply with intellectual property rules. Another concession to the least developed countries included giving market access to them for 97 per cent of their product lines. At the urging of Pakistan and some developed countries, textiles were included in the three per cent “tariff lines” left over that would not have duty free access. As was to be expected, Pakistan’s stance was not appreciated by the least developed nations who had gone to Hong Kong in the hope of gaining free market access for the entire list of their products.

Before the Hong Kong meeting there was agreement that talks would be intensified bilaterally between various groups of countries to liberalize trade in services. At Hong Kong the Europeans pressed for liberalization targets and that position was opposed by most developing countries that fear that their underdeveloped service industry would be swamped by such developed country institutions as banks and insurance companies. Instead, developing countries want greater access for their workers to the service sector even on a temporary basis. I have always found it hard to understand the strong protectionist sentiment in the developing world in the service sector.

Instead of seeking protection and long periods of time for opening the sector, the developing world — in particular countries like Pakistan which have large and young populations — should ask for opening the markets in the developed world for services such as airlines and shipping.

As already indicated above, I believe that Pakistan should work harder to define its position in global trade talks in a way that helps it to secure a better access in agricultural products. It should spend less energy on improving access for textiles. In textiles Pakistan has considerable potential in the rapidly growing markets in Asia. For opening these markets it should focus on providing such regional arrangements as the proposed South Asia Free Trade Area, Safta, with greater substance than it has at present and to obtain better access to China in the context of the bilateral agreement on which it is presently working.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Religion Of Islam MUKHTIAR ALI Islamiat 3 Friday, April 03, 2020 10:31 AM
Islamic Information safdarmehmood Islamiat 4 Thursday, June 28, 2018 08:09 AM
The coming trade war and global depression sibgakhan Current Affairs 5 Tuesday, February 11, 2014 02:30 PM
The Globalization of World Politics: Revision guide 3eBaylis & Smith: hellowahab International Relations 0 Wednesday, October 17, 2007 03:13 PM
What Is The New World Order?? MUKHTIAR ALI International Relations 1 Monday, January 08, 2007 09:39 PM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.