In a dramatic departure from ingrained political tradition, US farmers are willing to give up billions of dollars in government agriculture subsidies if new markets for their goods open up abroad -- a measure they hope US negotiators can put through in Hong Kong at WTO discussions.
The concession is linked to a number of conditions -- including the EU's following suit in cutting farm subsidies, and developing countries' willingness to cut down their import tariffs.
But if the rhetoric in the past months is any indication, neither condition is likely to be met, especially with France and Spain dragging their feet on the issue.
A US coalition of dozens of trade groups and large companies has voiced support for the US government plan to sharply reduce an estimated US$20 billion paid annually to the agriculture industry.
The coalition includes industry giants such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Grain and Feed Association and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
In a statement on the Hong Kong discussions, known as the Doha Development Round, the group said it supports "reductions in total trade-distorting domestic support and other US concessions" so long as they support US objectives of "market access and export competition."
Countries subsidize domestic agriculture to make it turn a profit and maintain a steady and secure food supply.
Developing countries, where labor is cheap, complain that their farm exports can't compete with the prices in richer countries, thus closing down a major avenue for economic development.
Though the industrialized world has long moved away from agriculture-based economies, developed countries still maintain farm trade barriers to protect their farmers from less expensive foreign products.
In an unusual departure from this policy, the US has offered to reduce some domestic farm subsidies by 60 percent over the next five years and to eliminate export subsidies by 2010. In return, it expects developed countries in Europe to cut subsidies, and developing countries to open their markets to US goods.
This would dramatically change the way US agriculture industry is doing business, said one expert, who indicated that farmers could well expect some sort of other federal assistance, for example rewards for using conservation techniques, to compensate for the subsidy losses.
High level trade talks in Cancun, Mexico, collapsed two years ago after rich and poor countries failed to agree on the issues.
Just last month, Pacific rim countries pushed for the EU to make the necessary concessions, and Mexican President Vicente Fox singled out Spain and France for dragging their feet.
US Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns is convinced that expansion of US exports is vital for the industry's future.
"To grow and prosper, America's farmers and ranchers must look elsewhere, to the foreign markets where over 95 percent of the world's potential consumers reside," he told a congressional hearing recently.
The US currently exports US$64.5 billion in agricultural products, an increase of US$10 billion in the past five years.
Canada, Mexico and Japan are the largest importers of US farm products.
While there is strong backing for the US plan, Christopher Shaffer with the National Association of Wheat Growers reflected some of the unease, saying the offer came "at a universally difficult time for US farmers and ranchers."
"It is difficult to envision giving up any programs when faced with yet unknown highs in fuel and other input costs and low market prices coupled with continued trade challenges from our competitors," Shaffer said.
But he said it was also hard to see how "growers can prosper unless we open markets and expand our customer base with those beyond our borders."
Shaffer emphasized to Congress that the US should make no unilateral concessions.
"If the US wheat industry is going to accept painful changes in the US domestic support system, it must see major results in other areas of the negotiation that are important to us," he said.
Johanns has sought to assure farmers that their concerns are being represented, and pledged that "we will not unilaterally disarm with regard to substantial cuts in domestic support."
In the minds of some observers, US farmers are willing to accept reduced subsidies in a tit-for-tat because Europe and Japan have much higher levels of subsidies and tariffs. Across the board reductions would benefit US exporters to those rich markets.
The US government is unhappy with the EU response to its proposal, and US farmers also say that the burden is now on Europe if the goals of the Doha Round are to be achieved.
Gerald Tumbleson, president of the National Corn Growers Association, charged that Europe is "aiming to avoid any significant liberalization."
"The EU's proposal has been criticized by all participants in the negotiations, and will not encourage other developed as well as developing countries to make significant offers on market access," said Bob Metz, president of the American Soybean Association.
US negotiators, especially Johanns and Trade Representative Robert Portman, have been preparing the public for lowered expectations from next week's WTO ministerial meetings in Hong Kong.
But Portman has not given up on the negotiations.
"Should the EU engage positively on knocking down these relatively high barriers to trade in agriculture, the other elements of the Doha Round could come together pretty quickly," he said.
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