US leads the way in scramble for favourable deal

Three minutes to speak about the world trade situation was a little more than US Trade Representative Ron Kirk needed to sum up his country’s position on trade; after eight years of talks to thrash out a single trade deal, he needed less time than that.

Trade ministers were allotted three minutes each to state their positions at the start of the three-day ministerial of the World Trade Organisation that ended in Geneva Wednesday.

The meeting itself was about two years late.

Meant to be held every two years, ministers skipped one after the meeting held in Hong Kong four years back.

The talks launched in Qatar capital Doha in November 2001 to work out a set of rules to guide world trade have not led to an agreement yet.

Coming after all that, many thought three minutes too little for ministers to describe their position within the deadlock —a deadlock seen by much of the world to have arisen from the position of an unyielding US, although the US does not quite see it that way.

Kirk used part of his three minutes to put it across succinct and straight, in the celebrated North American way, after the usual politeness about how trade “can play an important role in the restoration of global prosperity.” He was speaking of course of that part of the globe occupied by the US

“The creation of new trade flows and meaningful market opening, particularly in key emerging markets, is required to fulfil the promise of Doha,” said Kirk. “We are looking for concrete signs from other members that they are ready to join us in that commitment.”

The International Monetary Fund has pointed out, he said, that “58 per cent of global economic growth between now and 2014 will be provided by China, India, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and the ASEAN countries.”

But the US wants far more access to the markets of developing countries, particularly the emerging economies among them, than they are prepared to allow.

Fleets of cars from General Motors on the streets of Delhi and Shanghai would be a better deal for the US than for those cities, and not because the cars will take up so much space.

If the US, it is argued, can get flooded by Chinese goods, it should in turn expect to flood that market back with its own, given the fast rising spending power of China’s consumers.

Separate rules for the two sides have long been claimed as valid on that principle of ‘common but differentiated’.

The US is seeing commonness more closely now than the differences, and wants quid pro quo.

Few now expect the government of President Barack Obama to yield.