[asia-apec 1181] NZ Media on APEC trade ministers meet

[Gatt Watchdog]

several articles here

>From New Zealand Herald, Auckland, 30/06/99  

Glimpse of big gains for NZ on horizon

By John Armstrong and Warren Gamble

Apec trade ministers have glossed over their differences regarding tariff
cuts by shunting the sensitive subject off to world trade talks, thus
avoiding another credibility-eroding scrap.

An afternoon retreat at the exclusive Gulf Harbour country Club ended with
ministers putting on a show of unity by reaching a broad consensus on what
should be discussed at the world talks later this year.

They agreed to support industrial products being included on the World
Trade Organisation agenda, widening the negotiations from simply
agriculture and services.

The deal avoided any detail over which range of goods and services should
be given priority when the talks begin in Seattle in November.

But more bickering over how fast to cut tariffs would have further crippled
the regional trade grouping's credibility following the feuding at last
year's summit in Kuala Lumpur.

Getting industrial products on the agenda at the WTO could have a big
payoff for New Zealand in the long term.  Other countries - particularly
the Europeans - would find it easier to trade off cuts in agricultural
barriers in return for lower tariffs on their manufactured exports.

Under WTO rules fishing and forestry are classed as industrial goods,
providing a potentially huge boost through more open access for New Zealand
exports.  However, any tariff reductions are likely to still be years off.

The Minister for International Trade, Lockwood Smith - who is chairing this
week's trade ministers meeting in Auckland - described the consensus as a
global breakthrough.

Although Apec's voice has now been added to calls for a wide-ranging WTO
round, the G8 grouping of world industrial powers, including Apec members
Japan and the United States, had already reached that position.

Despite that, Dr Smith pronounced Apec had moved a big step forward.
Australian Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer echoed the mood, saying the
meeting had got off to a flying start.

Another plus was that the ministers had agreed the coming WTO round should
be completed within three years.  However, the time limit may be optimistic
given that the last world trade negotiations took nearly twice that period.

The meeting also agreed to send the final six of 15 sectors identified in
an Apec initiative for early tariff reductions on to the WTO.

Dr Smith's buoyancy followed earlier signs that the two-day meeting might
have become bogged down over reluctance by individual member countries to
move on specific tariff cuts ahead of the Seattle meeting.

Analysts will have to wait until the release of the meeting's communique
today to judge whether Dr Smith's enthusiasm at his post-retreat news
conference matches the feelings of other countries.


Editorial, New Zealand Herald, Auckland, 30 June 1999 

Do us all a favour

Free trade is not a phrase that wins popular applause, and no wonder when a
representative of the world's foremost trading nation presents its openness
as a favour to the world.

United States Deputy Trade Representative Richard Fisher attempts to excuse
imminent levies on New Zealand-Australian lamb imports with the reminder
that the vast American economy has carried the world through the Asian crisis.

He is right, as far as he goes.  But nothing does more harm to the public
view of free trade than the suggestion it is a one-way benefit.  Trade
between individuals, companies and countries benefits both sides; it does
not happen unless both buyer and seller gain something each desires.  If
that is obvious in transactions between individuals and companies, why is
it not as obvious when trade crosses national boundaries?  Because it is
only then that politics comes into play.

Politicians, who for the most part know very well that trade multiplies
wealth overall, are cast in the role of commercial negotiators.  In forums
like that in Auckland this week, Governments deal in offers and concessions
as though they were giving away something from sheer national generosity.
It is all a bargaining pose, just as a canny individual or company
representative will feign agony over the fairest of prices.

Whatever success the pose may have in private transactions, it has a
powerful influence on public trade policy.  Comments such as those of the
United States envoy can only reinforce the myth that free trade is a favour
and that New Zealanders are "mugs," in the word of Alliance leader Jim
Anderton, to be offering other countries so much unfettered access to this
tiny market.

The mug is Mr Anderton if he belives a country of this size has more to
gain by protective bargaining than by embracing world prices and promoting
maximum trade at every opportunity.  It is easier to recognise the benefits
of external trade from the vantage point of a small economy than it is in
the United States.  But even there, it ought not be impossible to acquaint
voters with the fact that they are doing themselves a favour in buying from
abroad.

The United States did not carry the world through the recent crisis out of
kindness.  Its own interests were indistinguishable from those of the
global economy.  Those entrusted with the monetary and trade levers in New
York and Washington did not see much future in a fortress of internal
prosperity.  They have been less successful of late against the sectional
interests that are always seeking protection, as New Zealand lamb exporters
seem certain to learn.  But Mr Fisher is right that exceptions should not
be mistaken for the rule.

Protectionism is not resurgent.  The occasional setbacks for trade
liberalisation of late are patently not accompanied by a chane in political
philosophy.  They are accompanied instead by sorry excuses from
foot-shuffling officials and lame politicians who do not pretend to be
acting from any sort of principle. The progress of Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation might not be much advanced when the trade ministers' meeting
concludes in Auckland today because the prospect of a larger initiative
looms in the World Trade Organisation.  That's politics, a poor way to trade.
__________________________
New Zealand Herald, 2 July 1999

Moore the performer preaches Apec gospel to the converted
By Brian Fallow

WELLINGTON - It was a bravura performance.  Mike moore's passionate defence
of free trade yesterday may have been an exercise in preaching to the
converted - the diplomats and scholars attending the Institute of
International Affairs symposium on free trade in the new millenium.

But the contrast in syle between Mr Moore and his rival for the leadership
of the World Trade Organisation, Dr Supachai Panitchpakdi, could not be
starker.

Dr Supachai, who may well be as committed a free trader as Mr Moore, was in
Auckland this week for the Apec trade ministers meeting.  The dessicated,
technocratic style which has won him the nickname "Dr Super-dry" was on
display, ironically, at a seminar on bridging the gap, that is,
communicating the benefits of trade liberalisation to a sceptical or
indifferent public.

Mr Moore was resolutely unforthcoming yesterday about the impasse over the
WTO director-general's job or the proposal to resolve it by splitting the
term between him and Dr Supachai.  No-commenting was a new and rather
liberating experience, he said.

His speech was an ardent defence of free trade, not just as economically
sound or politically liberating, but as the best hope of the worst-off.

"In many countries, including my own, there are an increasing number of
citizens who feel locked out, forgotten, angry and hurt, believing falsely
that globalisation is the cause of all their problems.  They sit waiting
for a train that may never come, their faces pressed against the window,
easy victims to old and dangerous songs that yesterday was better."

While most countries had seen incomes rise, the gap between haves and
have-nots had also risen.  "People are appalled and dismayed when they see
the few living in splendour and the many in squalor, with half the world
dieting and the other half starving.  They are not impressed by being told
that on average they are better off than before."

But this was not the fault of the world trading system.  It was an argument
for making it fairer and stronger.  "Those countries that have liberalised
have done the best and we ought to say so," he said. "The point is not that
the global economy is somehow perfect or that the widening range of public
concerns are without substance or validity.  The point, rather, is that the
challenges we face can only realistically be addressed inside this global
system.

"If people, especially young people, say that unemployment is too high,
they are right.  If environmentalists say that growth must be sustainable
and not destroy the planet's essential equilibrium, they are right.  When
developing countries say they are not getting fair access and justice, they
are right."  But none of those problems would be resolved any more easily
by restricting trade, closing borders or undermining the rule of law as
embodied by the WTO.  Just the opposite.

Mr Moore argued for a more integrated approach to trade and development so
that countries could take advantage of open markets, bridging the "false
separation" between the work of the WTO and other world bodies like the
United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.  Many
smaller countries were in effect excluded by being unable to afford to have
representatives in Geneva, or just overwhelmed by the technical details and
thousands of pieces of paper.

Equipping smaller economies with the technical and research capacity they
needed in order to engage in the WTO negotiating process could not wait.
"That's the downpayment they want now, this year."