Global trade contracted this year at a rate not seen since the Great Depression and those paying the heaviest price are those who can least afford it. So, when trade ministers from the WTO’s 153 members gather in Geneva later this month, the issue of how the WTO and the global trading system can help the poorest countries will be high on the agenda.
Driven largely by collapsing domestic demand and production levels, but also by a shortage of affordable trade finance, trade volumes will fall by more than 10 percent this year. Whether trade will recover next year is an open question. Despite some evidence that trade volumes grew over the summer, recovery has been patchy — and so fragile that a sudden shock in equity or currency markets could once again undermine consumer and business confidence, leading to a further deterioration of trade.
The world’s poorest countries face the greatest hardship when trade languishes. They do not have the luxury of cobbling together fiscal-stimulus packages or rescuing ailing industries in order to cushion the shock brought about by the economic crisis. For them, trade represents a huge share of overall economic activity and is unquestionably the best avenue for exiting a crisis that has hit them hard.
The irony is that trade has collapsed just when these countries were becoming increasingly active in global markets, with their exports rising by more than 20 percent during this decade. For nations that depend on trade, the sharp drop in exports this year was crippling. Since the crisis began, export earnings of the world’s poorest countries are down US$26.8 billion, or 44 percent.
The WTO Ministerial Conference later this month will provide an occasion to consider the best ways to generate growth and alleviate poverty in these countries. Concluding the Doha round of trade negotiations by the end of next year — as world leaders have said they wish to do — is one of them. A Doha deal represents one of the most valuable tools at our disposal to help meet the UN Millennium Development Goals.
Frankly, all of us already know what needs to be done. Yet the Doha Round has fallen victim to basic misunderstandings — first, about why countries trade, and second, about how they trade.
Countries trade, first and foremost, because it is in their interest to do so. It is in a country’s interests to lower its import barriers so that it has cheaper access to goods and services that it cannot produce competitively. Trade increases competition and keeps inflation in check. In this way, trade can raise living standards. Moreover, countries that lower their import barriers also end up exporting more.
The reluctance of trade negotiators to pursue what is in their obvious self-interest reflects another, more serious misunderstanding about the manner in which nations trade. Consider US-China trade in iPods. Every iPod that the US decides not to import means a US$150 “decline” in China’s recorded exports, though only about US$4 of that value is actually added in China. Japan, which contributes about US$100 in value, suffers far more from China’s supposed decline in exports.
Clearly, the words “made in” mean something very different from what they meant 20 years ago. Our production processes are so globalized that a country’s import tariffs could well penalize imports from one of its own global companies. For many countries, particularly in the developing world, reducing obstacles to trade is insufficient for fuller participation in the global economy, because they also need to build their capacity to trade.
That is the central aim of the Aid for Trade initiative. Despite the economic crisis, Aid for Trade donor contributions to help the less fortunate have risen 10 percent per year since 2005 and major donors are on track to meet or exceed their pledges for future funds. Several major countries have agreed to increase their contributions this year to building infrastructure, productive capacity and know-how in the developing world.
Aid for Trade, however, is no substitute for the market-opening opportunities and improved rules promised by the Doha round. WTO members have already agreed that rich countries — and developing countries that are in a position to do so — would open their markets completely to 97 percent of exports from the world’s poorest countries and dramatically reduce duties for those products where barriers remain.
As a result, cotton subsidies, which depress prices and displace African exports, would be sharply curtailed and cotton exports from poor countries would receive duty-free, quota-free treatment in rich-country markets. All trade-distorting farm subsidies would be slashed by 70 percent to 80 percent in the major subsidizing countries. New rules on streamlining customs procedures would sharply reduce transit times. We must make progress on this agenda.
What is frustrating is that we are tantalizingly close to a deal which, according to the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics, would deliver global economic benefits of US$300 billion to US$700 billion annually, but to reap these benefits, we must close the deal. The next Ministerial Conference ought to signal that we are ready to do so.
Pascal Lamy is Director-General of the WTO.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS