Archive for November 20th, 2007
The EU is Bullying the World’s Poor to Rush into a Dubious Deal on Trade
The EU is Bullying the World’s Poor to Rush into a Dubious Deal on Trade
By: Madeleine Bunting
on: 20.11.2007
The EU is Bullying the World’s Poor to Rush into a Dubious Deal on Trade
Millions of jobs and thousands of companies in the developing world are under threat for the quick fix the WTO wants
by Madeleine Bunting
Gordon Brown’s commitment to Africa has been one of the most consistent themes of his political career, and as he arrives in Kampala, Uganda, at the end of this week for the Commonwealth summit, he might reasonably expect plenty of appreciation and warmth. Instead, what he’s likely to face is some intense presidential lobbying that will range from the privately furious to the deeply anxious. What threatens to ambush Brown at the ceremonials is a trade deal with the European Union that has come seriously unstuck. In the next few days the pressure will be on Peter Mandelson, the European trade commissioner, to convince trade ministers he can extricate the EU from a very tight corner and what could be a public relations disaster.
At stake are the millions of jobs and thousands of companies in 76 of the poorest countries in the world that depend on exports to the EU. Kenya’s horticultural industry, for instance, which lands beans on your plate and carnations on your dinner table. It’s a sector worth $700m in foreign exchange to Kenya, but come January, Kenya could face a 10% to 20% hike in tariffs on all its exports to the EU, and that could be sufficient to bankrupt some of its most successful export companies, carefully nurtured through aid programmes – including those of the UK. It could be a story replicated across the globe from Lesotho to Namibia, from Papua New Guinea to the Pacific island of Vanuatu, from the Caribbean to Mozambique. The commission would stand accused of slamming the first tariff increase in more than 40 years on some of the least developed countries in the world.
This would hardly make for flattering headlines. The EU likes to claim credentials for promoting development, and it would wake up to a nasty new year hangover as the villain of the piece. The tempo of negotiations to avoid this is becoming increasingly fraught as EU trade negotiators bully and cajole their counterparts in developing countries. The EU insists it has just six weeks to stitch together hugely complex trade deals; developing countries are furious that they are being rushed into agreements that will have far-reaching consequences for their economies.
So how did this pickle come about? How does trade policy end up being made on the hoof like this? Cast your mind back to 2005, and the talk during that year was that trade was as crucial as aid and debt relief to the long-term development of poor countries. The UK’s Department for International Development made “fighting poverty through trade” part of its mission statement. But trade proved the failure of 2005, the Doha round of the World Trade Organisation talks ended in stalemate. The fallout of that failure to reform key rules of the WTO is now being felt, as the EU presses on to implement what many argue shouldn’t still be in the WTO rulebook.
The basis of the present mess is that 76 former colonies of European countries have for more than 40 years benefited from a system of preferential, lower tariffs on their exports to the EU: it was a small gesture of colonial guilt. By the mid-1990s, other developing countries which didn’t have access to the system challenged it, and the WTO ruled it as discriminatory. The hunt was launched to replace it with a system that still benefited these former colonies but wasn’t going to land the EU in breach of WTO rules. The WTO gave the EU until December 2007 to sort it out. Without a deal, these countries would be subject to tariffs on their exports.
Fair enough, but the sting was that the new system – Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) – had to meet the WTO requirement for reciprocity: what had started out as the EU doing some poor countries a favour became a trade deal in which the EU was given duty-free access to the markets of developing countries. In return for its generosity, the EU would get a handsome dose of trade liberalisation.
Needless to say this agenda, which has been energetically pursued by the EU’s small army of trade negotiators, has made plenty of developing countries very jumpy – and has made campaigning groups extremely suspicious. They fear that this is an instance of how the old trade liberalisation agenda that achieved notoriety in Seattle in 1999 is reappearing through the back door; the US and the EU are skirting the much higher profile negotiations in the WTO to use bilateral negotiations that barely surface on the media radar in order to achieve the same objectives – market access for their companies
For the developing countries herded into six regional negotiating blocs, the EPAs have become a nightmare. They have a Damoclean sword hanging over their heads in the form of the December deadline, with all the economic disruption and chaos that would entail, but they also have deep anxieties about what they’re being rushed into agreeing.
There are three big concerns on EPAs. First, every developed country has used tariff protection in its history to develop industry, but EPAs restrict that capability and could unleash a surge in European imports that could wipe out fledgling industries such as Kenya’s dairy sector, as well as undercut prices of agricultural products. Second, governments themselves stand to lose a major chunk of their revenue that comes from tariffs; for instance, Zambia would lose $15.8m – the equivalent of its annual HIV/Aids budget. EU assurances that there would be aid to compensate only underline how this would increase dependency on aid. Third, the most complex and most important issue of all is how EPAs will affect regional trade. If you can get cheap widgets from the EU, why bother importing from your neighbour in Africa or the Pacific? UN studies have indicated that EPAs could lead to contraction in exactly those low and medium technology industries that are the basis for successful industrialisation.
The stakes are too big to rush into this, insist a growing chorus of voices in the developing world that are demanding to know why exactly this is the one WTO deadline the EU is insisting must be met. There are plenty of ways to postpone the deadline, but having snarled up the negotiations in unnecessary complications, the commission is now using the deadline as “a battering ram”, as one of those involved put it. There are plenty of rumours of heavy lobbying of individual governments – “We just talked to them as a friend of what was in their best interests,” said one official of recent discussions with Ghana, hotly denying any suggestion that this amounted to lobbying. And there have been squeals of outrage from the Pacific, where a commission email seemed to tie future promises of aid explicitly to getting an EPA signed.
It sounds grim. One of the biggest economic trading blocs in the world, on which the fortunes of many of these 76 countries are entirely dependent through both aid and trade, and here it is behaving like a bully-boy in the playground. But its bad behaviour is all behind closed doors; the arm-twisting is behind the bike shed, to play out the metaphor. International trade is such a complex subject and public attention so fleeting and rare that the EU is gambling on getting away with it.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/19/5322/
____________________________________________
comment :
… but nothing can beat what American farmes do to the Third World. And there is Monsanto which sells seeds to the Third World which only produce one time.
The whole West is not giving an dime or a thought to the Third World well being it is all about empty talk.
Hugo Chavez is putting his fingers in the weakness and the open wounds of the Western Economy.
by gmmonko
Divergences de vue entre les membres du groupe 5+1
Divergences de vue entre les membres du groupe 5+1
La réunion des représentants des cinq pays membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité + l’Allemagne, qui devait se tenir, aujourd’hui, à Londres, a été annulée, a rapporté la presse russe.
En effet, Pékin a annoncé qu’avec le nouveau rapport du Directeur général de l’Agence internationale de l’Energie atomique, sur le programme nucléaire iranien, la poursuite des pourparlers entre les membres du groupe 5+1 serait inutile, car le rapport de Mohammad El Baradeï confirmait que l’Iran coopérait pleinement avec les inspecteurs de l’AIEA.
Les Etats-Unis, la Grande Bretagne et la France avaient l’intention de proposer, à la réunion de Londres, l’avant-projet d’une résolution, sur de nouvelles sanctions à imposer à la RII.
Notons que la Russie et la Chine s’opposent au régime des sanctions et plaident pour le dialogue avec Téhéran et le développement de la coopération avec l’AIEA.
Lundi 19 Novembre 2007
IRIB
Feds ‘Lose’ Hundreds Of
Feds ‘Lose’ Hundreds Of Viruses, Microbes Imported To Hawaii
From Patricia Doyle, PhD
11-18-7
- Hello, Jeff – This one will really make you chuckle. Unreal. The State Department of Agriculture has ‘lost track’ of hundreds of viruses and microbes imported to Hawaii for research purposes over a
- 5 decade period because of a breakdown in the agency’s paperwork system. This leaves me saying “…yeah, right.”
- This is unbelievable. Who needs terrorists? Where the hell is ‘Homeland Security’ and all of the tax dollars we spend? All we need do is to upgrade even more labs to BSL 4 and wait and see what gets loose.
- I would almost say that people should take the next flight out but where can one go? Who knows where these pathogens have ended up.
- Another shameful disgrace.
- Patty
- Paperwork On Risky Viruses Mislaid
- By Sean Hao
- 11-17-7
- The state Department of Agriculture lost track of hundreds of viruses and microbes imported to Hawaii for research purposes over a five-decade period because of a breakdown in the agency’s paperwork system.
- The bulk of the import applications were filed by University of Hawai’i researchers who failed to report on the inventory and location of viruses and other microbes imported under 356 state permits dating back nearly 50 years, the agriculture department said.
- UH and other researchers typically are required to regularly report on the status of restricted microorganisms imported under state permits. However, this spring the state Department of Agriculture discovered that UH researchers were not submitting required paperwork on numerous imported bugs including dengue and West Nile viruses.
- The reports allow public health officials to inventory and locate which viruses, bacteria and other risky microbes are present in Hawai’i laboratories at any particular time. However, UH’s permit paperwork problems, which have since been resolved, did not result in added risk to Hawai’i residents, university and agriculture department officials said.
- The paperwork problem was discovered by state officials in mid-March following an Advertiser request for data on microorganism imports. The discovery of major reporting failures prompted the state to prohibit UH from seeking new or renewed import permits for a five-month period starting March 30. That moratorium was lifted Aug. 27 after the university filed required paperwork for 356 import permits dating to the 1960s.
- State and university officials shared the blame for the clerical problem, which in turn was attributed to outdated, manual permit filing systems and a lack of resources and familiarity with state regulations.
- “The entire system was at fault on both sides,” said agriculture department plant quarantine branch manager Carol Okada. “There are computers. We need to get off of this paper filing. And that’s what we’re doing now.”
- A new computerized permit system, new reporting requirements and increased inspections should ensure compliance in the future, she said. In addition, UH said it will better educate researchers on state regulations governing microorganism imports and add two new job positions to help monitor UH compliance in the future.
- The discovery of the permit problems follows a recent ramp-up in virus imports as UH attempts to specialize in infectious disease detection and drug discovery.
- The university now has 177 microorganism import permits covering avian flu, dengue fever, West Nile virus, SARS and several encephalitis-causing viruses, the Department of Agriculture said.
- That increase in research activity has raised concerns about risks to the health of Hawai’i residents and the state’s $12 billion tourism trade should an accidental release occur.
- The microorganisms are part of an increase in biotechnology research efforts that promise public health benefits and the diversification of Hawai’i’s tourism-based economy.
- UH and other state officials contend there’s little risk to the public of exposure to these viruses because access to the bugs is tightly controlled.
- However, the recent microorganism import reporting problems show that accountability over some of this research is lacking, said Maui physician Lorrin Pang, who has served as a World Health Organization consultant.
- The permit paperwork problem could have impacted public safety, Pang said. For example, if there was a local case of anthrax poisoning, health officials would benefit from knowledge on whether anthrax was present at UH laboratories, he said.
- “If you’re going to bring anthrax in, I’d would like to know something about it because if we have reports of anthrax, I can say it’s from you, or it’s from naturally occurring stuff,” Pang said.
- “You’ve got to have the paperwork. This is public safety.”
- The university said it is not currently conducting research on anthrax. However, UH has acknowledged importing several potential bioterrorism agents, including Japanese B, Eastern equine and Venezuelan equine encephalitis. There are no current plans to conduct research on those viruses, which are being kept to aid in disease detection, UH said.
- The university’s permit problems were traced to several issues including a lack of familiarization with state import regulations among researchers, said Jim Gaines, UH interim vice president for research. State reporting requirements are more stringent than federal rules. In other cases, researchers mistakenly thought the reports were not required because the microorganism permits were not used, Gaines said.
- “Researchers that were new to the state were familiar with the federal regs but not familiar with the Hawai’i regs,” he said. “That led to some confusion. We hope we have that cleared up now.” ”We put a lot of effort in once this was brought to our attention.”
- In many cases, required paperwork was not filed because researchers that imported restricted microorganisms were no longer around.
- “Some of the (permits) went back to the early ’60s – they were close to 50 years old and there were faculty members that were deceased (and) faculty members that were no longer with the university,” Gaines said.
- Computerized permitting systems installed this summer along with other new requirements are expected to ensure compliance with microorganism import reporting requirements in the future. However, data on hundreds of microorganism import permits dating back to the 1960s remain sketchy.
- For example, the agriculture department is still unable to produce a list of restricted microorganisms that can be imported into Hawai’i under previously granted permits. The department also could not produce a complete list of microorganism permits that were found not in compliance with reporting requirements.
- Permit data “is all (on) paper,” the Department of Agriculture’s Okada said. “It’s all in these folders all over creation. Because it was done that way, there’s no good way for us to do an audit of what was done and how much was not done.”
- Reach Sean Hao at shao@honoluluadvertiser.com
- http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Nov/18/bz/hawaii711180337.html
- Patricia A. Doyle DVM, PhD
- Bus Admin, Tropical Agricultural Economics
- Univ of West Indies
- Please visit my “Emerging Diseases” message board at:
- http://www.emergingdisease.org/phpbb/index.php
- Also my new website:
- http://drpdoyle.tripod.com/
- Zhan le Devlesa tai sastimasa
- Go with God and in Good Health
Rense.com
Pioneering ‘heat wave’ gun may be used in Iraq
Pioneering ‘heat wave’ gun may be used in Iraq
By Philip Sherwell in Quantico,Virginia and Jacqui Goddard
American commanders in Iraq are urging Pentagon chiefs to authorise the deployment of newly-developed heat wave guns to disperse angry crowds or violent rioters.
Washington fears a barrage of adverse publicity in the suspicious Muslim world and is concerned that critics will claim the invisible beam weapons were being used for torture.
Now the US military directorate charged with developing non-lethal weapons, which has invested more than a decade developing the Active Denial System (ADS), has launched a concerted effort to convince both the public and its own bosses at the defence department of the device’s merits.
“With brand new technology like this, perception is everything,” said Col Kirk Hymes, a former Marine artillery officer who heads the directorate.
He added that tests were almost complete and the first ADS, also known as the Silent Guardian, could be deployed early next year if the Pentagon allows. The decision is so sensitive that it is expected to be made personally by the defence secretary, Robert Gates, who sent senior representatives to the demonstrations.
Raytheon, the company contracted to manufacture the prototype, has also received interest from several undisclosed European countries. The machine displayed last week cost about $10 million to build, but the directorate believes that the ADS can be put into production for $2-$5 million (£1-2.5 million) per device.
Col Hymes told observers at a demonstration that the system was a safe and effective alternative to plastic bullets, which can cause injury and sometimes death and are effective only up to 75 metres.
The heatwave weapon can, by contrast, target troublemakers from 750 metres. It works by dispatching high-powered radio waves from a vehicle antenna, similar to a satellite television dish, causing the molecules in a target’s skin to vibrate violently, creating a burning sensation.
But he added: “This is not something we want to roll out and deploy and surprise people. We know we need to educate the public.”
In fact the development of the weapon only became public after the Sunshine Project – a Texas-based group that campaigns against biological and chemical weapons – pushed for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
The group’s director, Edward Hammond, said: “If we are not prepared to use it as a crowd control technique on our own citizens, then we really shouldn’t be using it in Iraq either.”
Marc Garlasco, a former Pentagon intelligence officer who is senior military analyst for the Human Rights Watch campaign group, was among those invited to feel the device’s impact at a recent demonstration.
He said: “If I had the option of being shot by a bullet or this, I would choose this – but still not enough is known about it. This is novel technology. We’re talking about bringing science fiction into reality and it’s critical to have open discussion.”
He added: “People understand what happens when you get shot with a gun, but with the “pain-ray” there’s still uncertainty. When it’s used, the military is going to have to deal with a public backlash because I’m sure there will be claims of medical problems by the people it’s been used upon, real or not.”
“We are talking about young soldiers having this in their hands. If we upset the civilian population in Iraq, whether by killing, by torture or by misusing this, it will have a strategic effect on the US’s ability to execute effective operations.”
Col Hymes said that all ADS operators were given a six-week training course that covered sophisticated crowd control techniques as well as handling the technology.
