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."
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Despite the steady modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the international community is skeptical of its warfare capabilities. Late last month, US think tank RAND Corp published two reports revealing the PLA’s two greatest hurdles: personnel challenges and structural difficulties. The first RAND report, by Jennie W. Wenger, titled Factors Shaping the Future of China’s Military, analyzes the PLA’s obstacles with recruitment, stating that China has long been committed to attracting young talent from top universities to augment the PLA’s modernization needs. However, the plan has two major constraints: demographic changes and the adaptability of the PLA’s military culture.
About 6.1 million couples tied the knot last year, down from 7.28 million in 2023 — a drop of more than 20 percent, data from the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs showed. That is more serious than the precipitous drop of 12.2 percent in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the saying goes, a single leaf reveals an entire autumn. The decline in marriages reveals problems in China’s economic development, painting a dismal picture of the nation’s future. A giant question mark hangs over economic data that Beijing releases due to a lack of clarity, freedom of the press