The US may blame the rest of the world for the breakdown of the world trade talks, but the rest of the world blames the US. In fact, for emerging economies, the collapse is another reason to hate Uncle Sam -- a dislike that could have deep ramifications for US Inc.
For decades, poor nations have railed against the austere economic policies imposed by the IMF and the World Bank -- institutions dominated by Americans. What's more, US farm subsidies worth hundreds of millions of dollars lower commodity prices and see produce dumped on overseas markets.
Now that the US is in the dock for blocking a trade round designed to help the developing world haul itself out of poverty, US experts believe there could be further damage to its reputation.
Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, an independent Washington-based polling organization, says: "This reinforces the view that America is conducting its foreign policy -- in this case trade -- in its own interests. Our surveys show one of the biggest criticisms of foreign policy is its unilateralism."
The US in general -- but Bush in particular -- has been criticized for unilateralist tendencies. Bush's first presidential term saw him attacked for his agricultural policy and the tariffs he introduced to protect the domestic steel industry, and Kohut believes the Doha failure will add to the bad feeling over these issues.
In addition, he says: "American policies are seen to increase the gap between rich and poor countries, and [the trade talks collapse] speaks to that fear as well."
But he adds that US priorities may remain unchanged because of the lack of profile these issues have at home.
"The world is more sensitive to what we do in trade than Americans are. When steel tariffs were in place, we did a poll across Europe and most people in Europe were aware of them and critical; most people in America were not aware at all," he says.
If this is true, then criticism of the US -- over the collapse of Doha, as with other "unilateralist" actions -- may intensify because the US electorate appears so indifferent to it. But will this kind of anti-Americanism translate into a more dangerous kind: the sort that might harm its commercial interests?
In the developing world, there are already examples of US products being boycotted: the Indian state of Kerala has shunned Coca-Cola for years. India and the US are also at each other's throats over Washington's tough response to what it regards as the "dumping" of shrimp exports on to its markets by India and other developing nations.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin is planning to prevent US companies Chevron and ConocoPhillips from developing the enormous Shtokman gas field. And sales of iconic US brands such as Marlboro, Coke and McDonald's fell in countries such as France and Germany in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion.
Does the failure of the Doha round increase the likelihood of an anti-US backlash? Stuart Eizenstat, a former adviser to presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, believes the link between US policy and brands is too simplistic.
"People separate out American investment, job creation and consumer products, which are attractive, from trade talks," he says.
But he says of the Doha failure that "everyone is a loser," and points out that with the US a prime proponent of opening markets (and given its pledge at the G8, along with other nations, to make concessions to get a deal), the whole affair has been "a blow to American leadership."
domestic politics
Eizenstat believes the breakdown cannot be blamed on the US, but that it was always going to be difficult to see US negotiators pressing for a deal when there was no pressure on Capitol Hill for concessions on agricultural subsidies.
That is true now, and perhaps will remain the case after the November mid-term elections. Bush's Congressional mandate to pursue trade talks expires next summer; if he wishes to restart talks he must act quickly. Indian sources in particular believe he might -- and for this reason they will not speculate on what could happen after the breakdown.
One predictable outcome of the breakup in multilateral talks is that the focus will now switch to the hundreds of bilateral dialogues that will have to constitute the bulk of international trade negotiations while the WTO picks itself up. There are differing opinions on how this will affect the US.
An EU official says: "Since Bush became president, the US has concluded 12 bilateral agreements, there are six ready for signature and 11 others under negotiation. That is a sign of what the US is about in terms of trade policy. It likes bilateral agreements."
Why? Because bilaterals tend to be more favorable to stronger negotiating parties than multilaterals, where exceptions and riders are less acceptable in final agreements.
However, while the US pursues its own bilateral agenda, so do developing nations. While India refuses to link the two issues, its trade minister, Kamal Nath, does emphasize his country's own bilateral talks with the EU and Japan in the aftermath of Doha.
Brazil also has its own ideas. As one of its officials says: "Brazil, like everybody else, is involved in bilateral talks. You will see a proliferation of these kinds of deals, and you could see America being left out of it a bit."
But the Indian response to the breakdown is less robust -- thanks, perhaps, to the hope that talks will restart: "Of course there are bilateral issues with America such as anti-dumping. But we are clearly able to separate our bilateral relationship with America from our negotiations in the multilateral arena."
India, it seems, follows the Eizenstat doctrine.
However, as the Brazilians point out, the US was being offered valuable concessions from developing countries for the first time -- on tariffs on industrial goods and services -- that were simply overshadowed by the agricultural issues. It is to the US' detriment that these have been lost.
And, they say, India, China and to a lesser extent Brazil are becoming more powerful. The balance is not going to change overnight, but as it shifts, the interest of the US in a credible multi-lateral body like the WTO that can also resolve disputes, such as Boeing/Airbus, becomes stronger.
Kohut would probably agree.
As he says: "The long-term impact [of this kind of failure] is that it becomes more difficult to convince people to go along with you."
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs