Monthly Archives: March 2003

US motives in an FTA

Oth­er­wise intel­li­gent peo­ple are appar­ent­ly puz­zled about what the USA could get out of a Free Trade Agree­ment with Aus­tralia and, see­ing noth­ing obvi­ous that the USA might want assume that the US objec­tives are non-obvi­ous and pos­si­bly devi­ous.  It’s fer­tile grounds for con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists. The Oppo­si­tion Spokesman (Craig Emer­son), des­per­ate for notice, says that […]

How deep do tariff cuts need to be?

Sup­pose all you want­ed to do was to reduce the aver­age legal rate of duty around the world (the bound rate in WTO-speak) down to the rate actu­al­ly being applied on aver­age for all prod­ucts? How much would you need to cut tar­iffs in order to do that? Such a cut would mean no actu­al […]

Three reasons for an FTA

Here are three rea­sons for trad­ing busi­ness­es to take seri­ous­ly a free trade agree­ment between Aus­tralia and the USA. First: it will be big.  The World Bank mea­sures the GDP of Aus­tralia as larg­er than the com­bined GDP of all of the 10 aspi­rants to EU mem­ber­ship. The USA’s econ­o­my is almost as large as […]

The view from Paris

Le Monde sticks it to Wash­ing­ton. But they’re close to cor­rect about the nature of the fail­ures that will con­tin­ue to echo in oth­er quar­ters. The cur­rent lead­ers of the world’s most pow­er­ful nation have allowed diplo­ma­cy and force to con­flict, when they could just as eas­i­ly have allowed them to work in har­mo­ny. Wash­ing­ton […]

Will disputes over war damage the WTO round?

meta-cre­a­tion_­­date: March 18, 2003 The WTO Direc­­tor-Gen­er­al Supachai Pan­itch­pak­di has been quot­ed by the New York Times express­ing con­cern that the dam­age to mul­ti­lat­er­al deci­sion mak­ing in the progress to war will spill over into the WTO nego­ti­a­tions. I can feel the sense of trep­i­da­tion, Mr. Supachai said in an inter­view. What­ev­er hap­pens, if the […]

What did Chiraq say about a veto on war?

He was, in fact, say­ing that no mat­ter which of two hypo­thet­i­cal out­comes of a vote on the sec­ond Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil ‘ulti­ma­tum’ might occur, France did not at that time accept that an ulti­ma­tum was nec­es­sary. QUESTION — The Amer­i­cans are say­ing the oppo­site. Col­in Pow­ell thinks he will get [nine votes need­ed for a […]