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
The US Senate’s passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which urges Taiwan’s inclusion in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise and allocates US$1 billion in military aid, marks yet another milestone in Washington’s growing support for Taipei. On paper, it reflects the steadiness of US commitment, but beneath this show of solidarity lies contradiction. While the US Congress builds a stable, bipartisan architecture of deterrence, US President Donald Trump repeatedly undercuts it through erratic decisions and transactional diplomacy. This dissonance not only weakens the US’ credibility abroad — it also fractures public trust within Taiwan. For decades,
In 1976, the Gang of Four was ousted. The Gang of Four was a leftist political group comprising Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members: Jiang Qing (江青), its leading figure and Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) last wife; Zhang Chunqiao (張春橋); Yao Wenyuan (姚文元); and Wang Hongwen (王洪文). The four wielded supreme power during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), but when Mao died, they were overthrown and charged with crimes against China in what was in essence a political coup of the right against the left. The same type of thing might be happening again as the CCP has expelled nine top generals. Rather than a
Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmaker Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) on Saturday won the party’s chairperson election with 65,122 votes, or 50.15 percent of the votes, becoming the second woman in the seat and the first to have switched allegiance from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to the KMT. Cheng, running for the top KMT position for the first time, had been termed a “dark horse,” while the biggest contender was former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), considered by many to represent the party’s establishment elite. Hau also has substantial experience in government and in the KMT. Cheng joined the Wild Lily Student
Taipei stands as one of the safest capital cities the world. Taiwan has exceptionally low crime rates — lower than many European nations — and is one of Asia’s leading democracies, respected for its rule of law and commitment to human rights. It is among the few Asian countries to have given legal effect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant of Social Economic and Cultural Rights. Yet Taiwan continues to uphold the death penalty. This year, the government has taken a number of regressive steps: Executions have resumed, proposals for harsher prison sentences
RSS