Obama delays P5 trade negotiations
March 9th, 2009 at 6:42 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
The United States has put on hold scheduled talks with the grouping of Trans Pacific Partnership countries – including New Zealand – while key appointments are being made to the Trade Representative’s office, including congressional confirmation of US Trade Representative Ron Kirk.
President Barack Obama’s new Administration also wants to review its position on free trade before beginning talks which the US signed up to last September when George W. Bush was still in office.
If the delay is only due to the first factor – key appointments not yet made – then it is not a big problem.
It is the second factor – the review of the US position on free trade – that is far more of a threat.
Obama’s rhetoric was strongly protectionist during the Democratic primaries. If that represents his true position, then we have real problems.
However a senior Obama staffer was exposed telling the Canadian Government to ignore what he says about NAFTA, which suggests it may have been rhetoric only.
I admire John McCain’s free trade stance – he supported free trade agreemenets with basically every country on Earth, only excluding those they have security issues with (half a dozen countries such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran etc).
Bush had free trade rhetoric, but would ofen go protectionist to appease domestic pressures. McCain was a wonderful opportunity to actually turn the US away from protectionism.
If the US and Europe dropped their tariffs on goods from Africa, that would do more to lift many in Africa out of poverty than any amount of aid.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Hope and Change eh?
Looks like Barry is what we most feared, a protectionist democrat (but I repeat myself) with an agenda of domestic socialism and international passivity.
So far, can’t make appointments to his Cabinet
Offended the Eastern Europeans, the Brits
Grovelled to Iran, Russia (in the most risible way – “reset” button spelt wrong, and reset to what – 1968? height of cold war?)
and borrowed more money than all of the previous Presidents combined, with no ability whatsoever to pay it back
Oh, and some very tricksy games with tax (admittedly not the first POTUS to play this game).
and when called on it – his spokesmans says that Obama is “overwhelmed” by the extent of the issues.
Well maybe its over his paygrade. This is what happens when the US elects a prettyboy with an eloquent teleprompter. Shame about the rest of us, who kinda hoped the POTUS would be a grown-up though.
Yup, a real breath of fresh air.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 7:26 am
See on the news Phool Goof was rabbiting on about what we and the US SHOULD do WRT trade.
He is becoming a bigger joke with each passing day.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 8:11 am
DPF
It wasn’t a staffer, it was Austen Goolsbee, his head economic advisor. Who, as far as I know, hasn’t been given a position in the post-election team.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 8:26 am
When will the world’s press wake up to the fraud that is B Hussein Messiah Obama?
The fucking idiot is going to drive the world into a depression deeper than anybody ever imagined, just how long will it take before a member of the left wing press admits that the emperor is bloody naked?
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 8:32 am
This turkey can’t even get his own house in order, what hope is there for the US?
“Change”, small change down the back of the sofa by the look of it.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 8:34 am
The P4 trade deal has so much going for it for us (NZ), and will hardly affect the US save a few sheep farmers. Fonterra already has significant holdings within the US, they’re making more money over the than here with subsidiaries. I liked Obama when he was tub thumping, but as each day goes by it gets worse. I’m almost at the point of agreeing with DPF that Hillary would’ve been better.
I reckon big bruv might have it, he’s a fraud and totally out of his depth with the financial crisis – don’t these clowns learn that protectionism is the last thing we need right now.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Blame Key, he could not keep his big mouth shut in that WSJ interview.
Christ suggesting that the USA should follow the Nats advice of do what we say not what we do.
Key would not borrow, bollocks.
Vote:So no doubt it will get back to that evil bastard Rahm Emanual and he never forgets a slight against his boss.
So you right wingers will have to hope that Limbaugh wins in 2012 and that he is not too busy with his viagra.
Typical conservative.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Obama has really upset the sensitivities of the British.
There are hundreds of articles about the snub, and he was in a hurry to meet with the Scouts of America.
He has no time for Britain, but would quite like to meet the Queen with his good lady.
Isolationism is the natural default for the physce of the Yanks.
Obama will drop huge approval ratings soon, and the advisors will push him towards popularist protectionism.
He will remain a bat reared fraudster, show us the original birth certificate please.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
How about you change your name to grumpyoldignorantbigotedhori for your next 700 posts?
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Grumpy
How about trying to keep even a remote link back to reality?
Firstly, the US government isn’t going to upset the governments of Australia, Singapore and Chile because they didn’t like something the leader of another country said in an interview.
Secondly, Key says nothing in the interview that is even remotely critical of Obama.
Your theory makes about as much sense as blaming the US action on a dislike of Singapore curry noodles, or the Chilean President’s dress sense.
The message the US action sends is very very bad, but there is nothing much NZ can do about it. Ditto for Australia, Chile, Singapore and Brunei.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
As opposed to the many rabid anti-American spitting outburst from Helen Clark hori?
What a funny little man you are.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Little Mr. Conservative , a future GOP leader?.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Political cost of cutting subsidies – high. Always has been, and since we don’t protect our economy any more, the US can’t even argue they’re getting market access!
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Nancys told Barry forget any free trade crapola. the next and first wimmin POTUSA has spoken and like the good boy he is Barry is all ears and I do mean ALL ears
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“If the US and Europe dropped their tariffs on goods from Africa, that would do more to lift many in Africa out of poverty than any amount of aid.”
Actually, The US and Europe have few tariffs on much of Africa’s produce – under the WTO, Least Developed Countries automatically get tariff free access already. It doesn’t seem to have done them much good.
Products such as cocoa and coffee have never faced many tariff barriers (since their are no local industries to protect in Europe or North America), but the prices for producers are continually squeezed down by the corporations that control the trade, even when prices at ther consumer end have risen.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Sam makes a good point – many exports from really poor countries are already tariff-free. However, this doesn’t take into account the effect subsidised production in rich countries has on lowering world prices for a commodity -eg the EU propping up sugar beet prices. This is significant, but not easy to quantify.
I’m not sure how much control corporations have to keep down prices of raw material. A more significant problem (IMHO) is that barriers to entry are relatively low for most commodity crops. For instance, Vietnam identified coffee as a good income-earner, and over a decade went from nowhere to being the world’s second largest producer. Obviously, this added production helped lower prices, which hurt existing players like Colombia, Indonesia and PNG.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
They should get access, or they do? You raise a good point about low value goods sometimes not being tariff-ed as much though, I forgot about that. That obviously leaves ‘value-added’ products as important targets for tariff reduction, no? Subsidies are an issue too.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
As bobux said.
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 10:44 am
“They should get access, or they do? ”
Don’t know for sure – but one of the problems with the WTO framework is that LDCs seldom have the resources to challenge rich countries that break the rules. Even when they do, rich countries stonewall, appeal, and drag their feet (look at the Antigua case against the US on internet gambling, the former keeps winning the cases, the US keeps refusing them access).
In the case of primary production, there’s not much point waiting five years for the WTO to enforce rules as you won’t have an industry by then. Nor is there much to gain for LDCs in being granted the right to put tariffs on rich country imports, which is the WTOs standard penalty.
Vote: