Monday, June 26, 2006

Fair deal on agricultural subsidies and tariffs

Trading Up By SUSAN SECHLER and ANN TUTWILER NYTimes.com Homepage: June 26, 2006
The United States and Europe oppose these changes. But instead of defending narrow commercial interests at exorbitant expense, they should embrace this opportunity to advance their larger strategic goals of promoting prosperity and stability among the world's poorest nations... American politicians will argue that these protections are needed so that American workers are not asked to bear the brunt of bringing the world's poor into global markets. But the cost of protecting jobs in uncompetitive sectors through tariffs is foolishly high, with little of the benefits accruing to workers.
By not showing more altruistic leadership in the trade talks, the United States and Europe are in serious danger of missing the chance to lead the world closer to a rules-based global system of markets, trade and finance built on the democratic norms and values both continents profess to support. And in particular, the United States is forgoing an opportunity to restore some luster to its public image overseas.
But making the trade deal truly benefit the world's poorest is not simply an act of charity or a public relations gesture. The extra increase in market potential could also enable the poorest countries to attract more investment in roads, ports and training, helping their businesses to grow and opening more opportunities for American and European companies. That's why two weeks ago more than 200 leading American companies, business associations and organizations sent a letter urging American trade negotiators not to accept a "Doha-lite" agreement.

No comments:

Post a Comment