Dotty explanation

NZ trade offi­cials must believe that their future Free Trade Agree­ment with Chi­na will have weak rules of ori­gin, or maybe none. That’s the only sense I can make of this claim about the sig­nif­i­cance of NZ’s “agreement”:http://www.inquit.com/article/338/asean-free-trade-adventures last week­end to start Free Trade talks with ASEAN. bq. The move with Chi­na boost­ed New Zealand’s pro­file with poten­tial trade part­ners, he said. “It’s by far the biggest poten­tial devel­op­ment and it leads peo­ple on to want to join up the dots.” ASEAN had its own agree­ment with Chi­na and see­ing NZ work­ing with the people’s repub­lic prob­a­bly had an impact on the way the oth­ers dealt with us, Fal­con­er said. (“NZ Herald”:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/businessstorydisplay.cfm?storyID=3589554&thesection=business&thesubsection=trade&thesecondsubsection=exports empha­sis added) ‘Join­ing the dots’ means mak­ing a pat­tern appear from a puz­zle. But Craw­ford Faulkner’s metaphor (the news­pa­per gets his name wrong) doesn’t make much sense if the lines between the dots are just imag­i­nary links—as they must be under the nor­mal­ly exclu­sive rules of ori­gin in bilat­er­al, pref­er­en­tial trade agree­ments.

No Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email is never shared.Required fields are marked *