WTO Hong Kong Meeting: Setting the Bar Low

Following arecent meeting of the trade / commerce ministers from the US, EU, Brazil, India and Japan, a general consensus was reached -- that the December meetings of the WTO in Hong Kong will likely not result in much in the way of new agreements. The issue of US / EU agricultural subsidies will be on the agenda, but is unlikely to be resolved, while the richer nations will proabably ask for concessions from the lesser developed countries in areas such as access to markets.

Trade ministers dampen down expectations

The question is, though -- is this necessarily a Bad Thing? One's automatic reaction is to say, yes, that we want diplomatic talks (be they military, political or economic) to move towards resolution of conflict.

However. WTO / GATT negotiating rounds have been on a more-or-less continouius basis for over 50 years now, and there's no question but that progress has been made. The trade barriers we saw prior to WWII just aren't there any more.

[We'll leave out here the deeper philosophical issues over whether free trade is a Good Thing].

Ok. So GATT / WTO has moved slowly, yet continued to make progress. But I'd also make the argument that the issues being negotiated are important ones (the US agricultural subsidies have been around since the 1930's; the EU's agricultural subsidies are driven, by part, from famine expereinces in WWI and WWII). If these are important issues, doesn't it make some sense to move slowly, so that whatever solution is ultimately arrived at is one that all parties concerned can live with? The ag subsidies are an important issue. But, are they such an important issue that we need to rush to settle the issue or is it so important that we need to move slowly, so that whatever answer we reach is the best one?

Your thoughts????