The row over the uniforms and the WTO factor

My comment re "Made-in-China US Olympic uniforms spark political row" (Reuters):

China joined the WTO in December 2001. Is it time the US considers leaving the WTO? 


The EU? 


A departure of the US (and the EU?) from the WTO would not mean no trade. It would mean reliance on bilateral rather than the multilateral (ie WTO) agreements re the "rules" of trade (and possibly other economic issues and, why not, economic immigration). 

Dear Mrs. Merkel what's the point of a Single or even Common Market if .....

World Trade & the EU Single Market:

The German reply to the Barroso proposal re the EU's trade policy can lead one to ask the German government (and the UK one of course) the following:

What is the point of a Single or even Common Market or even a Free Trade Area (Cameron's dream for the EU) if the members of it do not have some benefits from it compared to non-members?

Seems that some EU members (eg Germany) want to have the cake and eat it too, ie fully exploit the EU Single Market and the Eurozone market (60% and 40% respectively of German exports in 2011) while fully exploiting WTO free trade to outsource production to ...?

It is accidental that German and Chinese domestic consumption is relatively low?

Or that China's WTO entry took place 1 month (December 2001) before the introduction of the Euro coins and notes?

Are German governments "team players" in the EU or Eurozone "team"? Which ones, in the last 10-20 years?

There is no I in team nor in Eurozone.

Instead of the EU using its 500,000,000 Internal Market ...

Instead of the EUrope using its 500,000,000 Internal Market (albeit a tad internally dysfunction 19 years after launch) as a huge negotiations chip in bilateral trade deals it's engaged in intra-EU blame each other "games".

Instead of Merkel soliciting money from China ...

Instead of Merkel soliciting money from China, she should be proposing EU exit from WTO which China has flooded with cheap prdocts via inter alia a Yuan policy and focus on existing and new bilateral deals of the EU with other countries or free trade areas (eg Mercosur/UNASUR, ASEAN, etc)

Capital vs Humans, the EPP, PES, ELDR way?

According to the Guardian today, "EU executive considers reimposing border controls" (please read the article then my comments).

Is it a coincidence that all 3 key players in this, ie Sarkozy, Berlusconi & Barroso are all from the EPP European political party? The party that takes public pride in having 15 or 16 of the 27 heads of state/government as its members?

That via its majority in the European Council and the European Parliament has EPP members in all 3 top EU positions, at present, ie:

1) Presidency of the European Commission (where a majority of the Commissioners were proposed by EPP member parties/leaders in government)?

2) Presidency of the European Council (where again it has a majority, ie among the heads of state/government of the 27)

3) Presidency of the European Parliament (where its national members hold a total of 265 seats out of 736, the biggest and thus most influential group in the EP, eg as a result the EP's current President is from the EPP ).

I) Is the change considered by the Commission's President to Schengen in line with "EPP values"? In line with European values?

II) What is the real value or use of the European political parties and political groups thereof in the EU policy making? In European integration?

IMO, the EPP has to prove its EU "values" in the Schengen issue since the parties involved, ie Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Barroso are EPP.

But that "burden" is not only for the EPP.

IMO, the EPP, the ELDR and the PES have to adopt clear positions on issues such as Schengen, Immigration, etc, that both reflect & bind all their member national parties and leaders. Otherwise, what is their real use when compared eg with more generic (and less binding) international groupings such as the Socialist International etc?

In other words, when the going gets tough, the tough get going, thus the EPP and other key EUropean political parties have to show their mettle in these hard and crucial times.

Capital vs Humans, the EU way?

According to the Guardian today, "EU executive considers reimposing border controls" (please read the article then my comments).

This prompts me to think:

Capital vs Humans (1): Why does EU have a common trade policy (ie for foreign capital, goods, services etc) but not common #immigration policy (ie for labour and humans in general)?

Does the EU (and its 27 members, more importantly) put capital & goods above labour/humans?

Capital vs Humans (2): If members can temporarily suspend Schengen, then why not also temporarily suspend the EU Single Market for goods, especially when they are foreign made?

Sad days for "EUropean values", IMO.

There are also important consequences for the EU's political parties (eg EPP, PES, ELDR) but I address those in a separate post.

capital, goods, humans and systemic imbalances in globalisation and the EU

Offering capital and goods more freedom than humans produces systemic imbalances (in addition to being rather anti-humanistic).
IMO there should be free immigration among at least the WTO member countries/economies.

PS: The very low intra-EU migration eg creates systemic imbalance inside the EU and its single market.

18 thoughts (and 562 words) re EUrope's interest

The events in Europe, the US and the world prompted these thoughts of mine this (Monday) morning.

I was reading an interesting WSJ article this morning. The article and the data quoted in it show IMO how Asian (& US) manufacturing and other exporters were piggybacking on the "hard" Euro. Also begging IMO the question: Who was the so called engine of growth: a) Asian manufacturing (as claimed) or the EU consumers and/or the uber-hard Euro?

Which led me to the following sequence of thoughts:

1) If China's yuan-USD rate policy had an "X" impact on US imports, what can then be said of impact on Eurozone imports due to the ECB's hard Euro policy? X times 3, 5, 10, more?

2) Are the EU citizens' interests being served by EU's WTO membership especially but bot exclusively since China entry and strategy?

3) The ultimate way for the Euro to be promoted and for EUropeans to unite may be for the EU to leave the waning WTO system!
(Food for thought: Should the UK leave the EU or should the EU leave the WTO? lol)

4) Food fir thought: Should the EU consider leaving (even temporarily) the WTO in order to protect its interests (eg the Euro, its budgets, the Single Market, etc)?

5) How are the EU's micros, SMEs and "average" workers (and the European Social Model) being served by the EU's WTO membership?

6) Should the EU pull the plug of the current (and faulty) version of globalisation? And negotiate a new one with US, BRICs, ASEAN, etc?

7) Are these key strategic questions that the current "crisis" is diverting the EU and its members from considering? For whose benefit?

8) Which interests are promoting & capitalising on xenophobia in order to divide the EUropeans as well as alienate them from their fellow 6 billion humans?

9) What interests are promoting a) intra-national and b) inter-member-states squabbles in the EU in order to divert attention away from the EU's interests?

10) Who is afraid of the EU's Social Model, its 0,5 bn population, its socio-political values and their potential impact on the rest of the world?

Think those issues through! Do not get caught up in the plot as set out by certain interests!

11) Which interests are promoting narrow (tunnel vision) views on such issues as sovereignty, taxpayers interests, immigration & identity, etc?

12) Which interests are capitalising on national and other stereotypes to keep EUrope from union and to promote xenophobia?

13) Which interests are working hard to make EUrope again a place where progressive minds flee from rather than the whole world is drawn to?

14) Which interests are working hard to turn the European Dream of the last 50 yrs into a nightmare for EUropeans and other humans?

15) It is high time for a global campaign against a) rising xenophobia, b) anti-humanism & c) a "global apartheid" in the US, the EU, the world.

16) The sum of most national immigration policies in force around the world these days constitute in effect a "global apartheid".

17) Are we going to let fellow humans become the scapegoats for the problems we are facing in this era?

18) Elementary my dear Watson: Economic immigration should in principle be FREE at least between the countries that participate in the world trade WTO system

Thanks for reading (and thinking)!

Large rise in China's imports behind trade deficit in March

Chinese officials have today announced a $7.2bn trade deficit for March 2010, the first since a $2.3bn deficit in April 2004.

Yesterday, Yi Xiaozhun, vice-minister in the Chinese Ministry of Commerce had hinted that China is likely to announce a trade deficit for March.

But these are a good reason behind that: The growth of China's imports that is largely due to rising prices for commodities as well as the huge demand for raw materials to power China's economy. In the last few months China has been importing huge amounts of iron ore, copper, crude oil, coal and steel!

And whereas the US and European markets for Chinese goods are still weak, even though Chinese exports are recovering, they are not recovering, yet, as fast as China's imports are growing.

What is also noteworthy is that according to Mr. Yi Xiaozhun, China doesn't want a trade surplus or a trade deficit.

On economic and political governance

Re all the economic governance "fashion" of recent months and weeks:

All policy issues have an economic dimension but no policy even econ has only an econ dimension 25 minutes ago via we

IMO economic policy decisions cannot be left to the "market" or supply and demand, they should not replace elected political governance.

For a market to be truly free it must also be "democratic" and rule of law does not mean rule of market rules or #economic theories.

Even common markets and free trade areas need political governance, IMO. Hence EEC Common Market naturally led towards EU Political Union.

IMO, we see the same thing happening with world free trade, ie for political governance to balance multilateral economic activity.

IMO all policy decisions must be approved by the people or their elected reps and economic, monetary and fiscal policies are no exception.

Trade Policy plans of the EU Trade Commissioner designate

The following are the Trade Policy plans of the EU Trade Commission designate for Trade Mr. Karel de Gucht, as he describes them in his written reply (PE431.166, pp 5-7 of the English version) to the written questions submitted to him by the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade as part of the confirmation hearings for the new College of Commissioners (Barroso II).


"Policy-related questions
4. What are the three main priorities you intend to pursue as part of your proposed portfolio, taking into account, where relevant, the financial, economic and social crisis and concerns related to sustainable development?"


Mr. de Gucht points out that throughout his political career, he has had "a long-standing commitment to open markets backed up by a rules-based international trading system. This combination can help to ensure that trade resumes its role as an engine of growth and job creation, pulling both the EU and our partners around the world out of the current crisis."

This leads him to three priorities.

"1) The Doha Development Agenda (DDA). The EU has for decades been one of the
strongest supporters of the multilateral trade architecture. We continue to need and
advocate a global, effective and enforceable system of rules for open trade. This is why
we must continue to push for the rapid conclusion of the DDA (Ed. Note: Doha Development Agenda) negotiations on the basis of progress so far, even if certain WTO Members are not yet able to fully engage on all core issues at this stage. A successful deal would provide a much needed boost to the global economy, helping to create jobs both in the EU and in the countries of our trading partners.

Finalising the DDA would also send a clear signal of the global trade community's capacity to act and of the effectiveness of multilateral institutions. It would build on the crucial role that the WTO has played recently – with strong EU support – in helping to prevent the protectionist spiral seen in the Great Depression.

2) We must complement the multilateral system by strengthening key bilateral and regional relationships. This is because bilateral agreements can go further and faster in promoting openness and integration, by tackling issues which are not ready for multilateral
discussion and by preparing the ground for the next round of multilateral negotiations.

Many key issues, including investment, public procurement, competition, intellectual
property, and other regulatory questions, which are currently insufficiently covered by the
WTO, can be addressed in such agreements. This would mean concluding Free Trade Agreements or similar types of agreements with amongst others India, ASEAN countries, Ukraine, Canada, Euromed, but also Mercosur.

In addition, we will also need to take forward our relations with key economic players, such as, for instance, the US, China, Japan or Russia. One way to do this would be to address issues of interest to both sides, including trade, through "strategic economic partnerships" which would also place a strong emphasis on a forward looking agenda to avoid future barriers to trade and investment. I will have a coordinating responsibility for the Transatlantic Economic
Council with the US and for the High Level Dialogue with China. Partnerships with other
major countries may be developed on a similar basis.

3) Finally, I intend to work, together with my fellow Commissioners, the Parliament, the
Council and wider stakeholders to ensure that trade policy is working for people, both in the EU and elsewhere, especially in developing countries.

Trade policy must be an integral part of this Commission's vision of Europe in 2020.

This means that trade must be put at the service of the broader policy goals pursued by the EU, both internally and externally and deliver results for our citizens.

This means ensuring that trade delivers choice and lower prices for consumers and businesses, helping Europe to remain competitive at home and in global markets.

But we also need to ensure that trade policy works in a way that helps rather than hinders legitimate social and environmental concerns, both in the EU and abroad.

Our trade policy must harness the economic benefits of trade liberalisation, while promoting European values such as human rights, social justice and the protection of the environment. The size and interest of the EU market provides us with leverage to promote this broader agenda and we have already seen results, for example, in sustainable development provisions in new agreements.

As outgoing development Commissioner, I am well placed to know that trade policy cannot be the answer for all development challenges, but it is a powerful instrument of EU policy and I will ensure that it contributes to improving the lives of the poor. This means finalising the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements in Africa and the Pacific, and subsequently monitoring their progress to ensure they realise their full potential."


The next (and last) question of the European Parliament Committee on International Trade:
"5. What are the specific legislative and non-legislative initiatives you intend to put forward, and according to what timetable? What specific commitments can you make regarding in particular the committees' priorities and requests attached hereto which would fall within your portfolio? How would you personally ensure the good quality of legislative proposals?"

The Commissioner designate for Trade replied:

"Trade Policy is an area with relatively little legislative work as such; the major part of
initiatives is related to trade agreements, with third countries or within the WTO framework.
In the next year, we are likely to see the signature of several Trade Agreements, which will then have to be approved by Parliament: the signature of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Korea is expected to take place in the spring of 2010, whilst we also hope to be able to initial bilateral deals with Peru and Colombia, as part of the Andean Community, and perhaps with Central-America, depending on the political situation in Honduras.

We are also working towards the signature of a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Iraq.

In terms of timing, it is difficult to say exactly when the Parliament would be called upon to give its consent to each of these.

I also expect a number of interim Economic Partnership Agreements to reach Parliament in the course of 2010.

As regards legislation, several initiatives are being considered.

The Lisbon Treaty has brought enhanced EU competences for foreign investment. In this context, an early priority will be to work on legislation in this area designed to provide certainty for foreign investors – particularly as regards arrangements already put in place by Member States.

In parallel with the conclusion of the FTA with Korea, we will need a Regulation on the implementation of the safeguard mechanism contained in this FTA.

Finally, there is the review and renewal of the Generalised System of Preferences, for which the Commission should make a proposal in the course of the year.

Alongside these important initiatives, we may also present various proposals of a technical nature, for example, linked to the resolution of WTO disputes or to implement changes to our trade regime resulting from earlier EU enlargements.

I will personally see to it that this legislation is prepared in line with the Inter-institutional
Agreement on Better Law-Making.

As regards the priorities set out by the Committee on International Trade, I refer to my replies
to questions 3 and 4, which I will elaborate during my hearing. Concerning Trade Defence
Instruments, President Barroso has asked me in my mission letter to oversee the updating and
modernisation of these instruments during this Commission's term.

President Barroso will present a successor to the Lisbon Strategy early during the new Commission's mandate. In this context, I will ensure that trade policy plays a full part in realising the new 2020 vision, linking internal policy measures to strengthening the EU's external competitiveness.

This will act as a point of departure for the work I will take forward to set out a strategic trade policy for 2010 – 2015."

US: Renegotiate NAFTA and bilateral FTAs? How about WTO and fast track in Doha?

In the UK, the Tory leader Cameron wants to renegotiate EU laws and competencies.

In the US, a group of US Senators as well as many Reps want Obama to renegotiate NAFTA and other trade agreements!

Do the Senators (TRADE act) and Reps who want Obama to renegotiate NAFTA and 15+ other existing free trade deals also want him to do the same with the existing multilateral WTO (World Trade Organization) rules?

Plus, will they give him fast track powers for negotiating Doha, as GWB had (until mid 2007)? "Fast Track" means that the US Pres. can agree on a deal and then Capitol Hill (House and Senate) can only approve or reject but not amend. Obviously, with such powers, Obama cannot negotiate and conclude a WTO deal in the so called Doha Round of talks that has been lingering on since 2001.