• Steve LeVine covers foreign affairs for Business Week. He previously was correspondent for Central Asia and the Caucasus for The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times for 11 years. His first book, The Oil and the Glory, a history of the former Soviet Union through the lens of oil, was published in October 2007. Putin’s Labyrinth, his new book, profiles Russia through the lives and deaths of six Russians. The updated paperback was released in April 2009.



    To Install the O&G Newsfeed on Your Site, Click "Get Widget" Below

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner



    A Blog on Russia, Energy, the Caspian and
    Beyond

    Friday, August 1, 2008

    Listening to Iowa, India and China

    The West has made it so difficult for Russia to join the 153-member global trade group called the WTO that, under Vladimir Putin, Moscow adopted the Groucho Marx dictum, "I refuse to belong to any club that will have me." After the performance of the leading trading nations in Geneva this week, one might be tempted to have sympathy for that sentiment. Freer trade is important -- if done right, poorer nations can spread the wealth beyond the corrupt elite. But the emphasis is on the execution.

    The prevailing wisdom after this week's unprecedented collapse of talks for a freshened, global trade deal is that the world may have become too complex for such grand deals now. Better to turn to smaller, piecemeal pacts among nations and regions, and curb one's ambitions.

    From such smaller agreements, according to this line of thinking, those antagonistic toward freer trade will be more comfortable with it. Or, say some people, such limited accords may be the wave of the future – it may no longer be possible to strike a global trade agreement, not with so many competing interests.

    It seems to me that that's at best a limited reading of what happened to the so-called Doha trade agreement. My BusinessWeek colleagues Bruce Einhorn and Mehul Srivastava go a ways in explaining why India and China, for instance, dug in their heels at the last moment:

    The field has changed around the world. Just as politics has led the U.S. Congress in June to renew subsidies of its cotton and sugar farmers, China and especially India are responding to domestic unease with more open trade borders.

    Look at the trouble getting the Columbia trade deal through the U.S. Congress. Are the Democrats going to be more amenable if they see Canada, for instance, do bilateral deals? It seems absurd on its face. Extend that out to the rest of the world, and you get the picture.

    Instead, free-traders need to start over with roll-up-the-sleeve politicking. Quite apart from increasingly hostile domestic opinion, a President Obama or McCain will - far more than previous U.S. leaders -- have to satisfy emerging economic states.

    India's trade minister, Kamal Nath, used humor to make just this point. At the last moment, it seemed that U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab understood that the West could no longer ram through its agenda, and tried to finesse India. But it was to no avail. "Susan Schwab said that she loved me," Nath said in Geneva. "I said that I loved her too. But probably she didn't love me enough."

    One of the most striking aspects of the final hours of the talks was the decidedly undiplomatic language used by China's trade representative, Chen Deming, in complaining that the West simply didn't take the rest of the world seriously. "There were no serious efforts to convince the Third World to accept the developed world's package." Deming said. He said, "Once their interests were guaranteed, the Americans demanded a sky-high price" of developing nations.

    After the way he has talked down Nafta, Sen. Barack Obama not surprisingly may not be in an enormous hurry to find a way to resurrect Doha. In statements after the collapse, the campaign issued soft support for Doha, but said that the Bush administration was "right to walk away" from China's and India's last-minute demands. Asked what precisely would be needed to move Doha forward, Dan Tarullo, a Georgetown law professor who advises the Obama campaign, told me that it's too early to know. It is also too early to know whether one should use the building-block approach suggested by the McCain campaign. Talking to the Obama camp, the feeling is of a campaign punting what it probably regards as a back-burner issue.

    I also spoke with Colin Bradford, a scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He said that the collapse isn't necessarily a bad thing. All the major economies involved – the U.S., China, India, Japan, Brazil and so on – are listening more closely to their domestic constituencies than they ever have, he says. Agriculture subsidies are a sensitive issue in all the major economies. "Are we ourselves going to say we are not going to listen to our Iowa farmers?" Bradford said.
    Photo: Eurritimia

    Labels: , , , , , , ,

    posted by Steve at

    4 Comments:

    Blogger JSN said...

    This article on Bloomberg says, since the current round represents about 50 billion dollars in trade, and global trade annually is about 54 trillion, it amounts to a "rounding error."

    I am in no way sympathetic to any "fair trade fight" between America and Portugal, or China and Bhutan. Those fights will never be fair.

    I like Ha-Joon Chang's Bad Samaritans. It shows, quite clearly, that America either has amnesia, or it is being consciously hypocritical, when it attempts to push free trade on poor nations. He's a Cambridge professor of Economics, but that shouldn't matter as long as all his facts are correct.

    August 2, 2008 4:50 PM  
    Blogger Steve said...

    JSN: welcome to O&G. I think there is a way to navigate the issue. The trouble for the usual big players is that more countries have and feel their muscle. The G-8countries need to do more spade work if they want a deal. Plus be willing to show more leadership at home on the subsidy front. Best Steve

    August 6, 2008 4:30 PM  
    Anonymous ordinary citizen of Central Asia said...

    Can you pls read this article on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/energy.russia?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews and tell me if this is what taught at US universities by such "Alexandros Petersen is program director of the Caspian Europe Center, Brussels and adjunct fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington". This is truly scary...

    August 7, 2008 6:59 PM  
    Blogger Steve said...

    Welcome ordinary citizen: I doubt that the geopolitics of the Caspian is taught, certainly in any depth, at U.S. universities. Do you suspect that Mr. Petersen is somehow linked to U.S. institutions apart from CSIS, which is a think tank?

    Whatever the case, this article does not state anything original or startling. The Caspian is a primary battleground between Russia and the West, and has been for more than a decade.

    Thanks for the comment and best, Steve

    August 8, 2008 8:25 AM  

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home