PAULINO CÁRDENAS

Como era lógico, Estados Unidos fue el referente en el Foro de Cooperación Económica Asia-Pacífico (APEC) que durante dos días se celebró en Singapur, donde la mayoría de los 21 países ahí representados tenían planeado irse a la yugular del máximo representante de esa nación y culparlo de que mientras persista la política de proteccionismo comercial en la que ha estado empeñado Washington, dificilmente podrá reequilibrarse el crecimiento mundial.

Enterado anticipadamente de ello, el insospechado Premio Nobel de la Paz 2009, Barack Obama, había adelantado, poco antes de su llegada a Singapur, que reiteraría su llamamiento para redireccionar los desequilibrios que según muchos analistas llevaron a la crisis financiera mundial. Esa estrategia, en principio insta a que Estados Unidos ahorre más y gaste menos, reforme su sistema financiero y recorte sus déficits a largo plazo y préstamos.

“También significará un mayor énfasis en las exportaciones que nosotros podemos producir y vender en todo el mundo”, afirmó el mandatario norteamericano en un discurso previo a su arribo a la reunión de la APEC, en Tokio, su primera parada en un viaje de nueve días que realizará por Asia. “Simplemente no podemos retornar a los mismos ciclos de auge y crisis que nos llevaron a una recesión global”, aseveró.

Nuevas cifras del Gobierno sobre el déficit comercial de Estados Unidos, que creció en más del 18 por ciento a 36.500 millones de dólares en septiembre, podrían agregar urgencia a los esfuerzos de Obama para buscar mayores oportunidades de exportación en China y otros países asiáticos, señalaron analistas de Iblnews.

Hasta el presidente mexicano, Felipe Calderón, dijo en ese foro que el proteccionismo era la mayor amenaza a la economía y señaló a Washington por tendencias que se oponen al sentido del libre comercio, citando como ejemplo el aumento de las cláusulas de “compre americano” en la legislación de Estados Unidos, lo que incidía en los acuerdos del TLC.

Los líderes de la APEC habían resuelto, antes de la llegada de Obama a esa reunión, ejercer más voluntad política –léase presión– para revivir  la llamada Ronda de Doha, patrocinada por la OMC (Organización Mundial de Comercio) un sistema de negociaciones para liberalizar el comercio mundial que busca equilibrar los niveles de subsidio y las tarifas a la importación de productos agrícolas.

Lo anterior se señaló en un comunicado emitido después de la reunión, en el cual también los países participantes en el foro de la APEC “reiteraron su compromiso de rechazar toda forma de proteccionismo”, aseveró el documento. Hace apenas una semana, el premio Nobel de economía, Joseph Stiglitz, había dicho que “la realidad es que la Organización Mundial de Comercio es una decepción”, lo cual vino a ser una crítica frontal a su presidente Pascal Lamy.

El colapso de las charlas de la Ronda de Doha quedaron en el limbo desde el año pasado y obedeció a un desacuerdo entre China, India y Estados Unidos sobre los subsidios agrícolas. El asunto más polémico en esa área fue un mecanismo de salvaguarda (MSE) que buscaban Delhi y Pekín, pero al que se oponía Washington. Con lo dicho por Obama en Singapur parecen haber renacido las esperanzas de que la Ronda vuelva a retomarse.

Mientras tanto en los corrillos del foro efectuado en Singapur corría la pregunta de si la administración Obama será capaz de superar la severa crisis y la recesión que parece empezar a levantar cabeza en esa nación o si en términos generales la situación podría empeorar si se afloja la rienda.

Por su parte el director gerente del Fondo Monetario Internacional, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, aceptó que el panorama de la economía global sigue frágil. No obstante, descartó que Estados Unidos –de cuya estabilidad depende la de muchos países en el mundo, incluído México–, pudiera volver a entrar en recesión cuando concluya el plan de reactivación presupuestaria iniciada por Obama.

pcardenascruz@yahoo.com.mx

Pascal Lamy, Head of the WTO

I first learned about the Doha Development Round  for the World Trade Organization when I was studying abroad at the Danish School of Journalism in Denmark.   The round began in 2001 with a meeting in Doha, Qatar. The Doha trade agreements aim to lower agricultural subsidies in developed countries.  Many developing countries view these subsidies as trade barriers.  The major developing countries in Doha are India, Brazil, China, and South Africa.

According to WTO reports the U.S. and the EU each contributed a little more than a third of the total subsidies in 2001.  Most recently, Doha negotiations broke down in July of 2008 because the U.S., China, and India could not agree on agriculture import laws.

If passed, Doha would revolutionize world trade.  It would open up developing markets even more, allow great use of patented medicines by the developing world, and increase our dependence on developing countries.  For example, we could import sugar for ethanol from South America instead of using corn made in Illinois.  Of course, farmers in states like Illinois do not like Doha.

Right now, the U.S. imposes heavy taxes on sugar imports to make sure that we protect those farmers in Illinois and the Midwest.

It was fascinating to attend the World Trade Committee steering group overseas.  Many people are either pro or anti-Doha.  Many socialists and human rights activists say Doha will ruin the culture of developing countries by putting Wal-Mart in tiny rural African villages.  They say Doha will replace African markets with Target.  Pro-Doha activists say that Doha will increase the wealth and prosperity of the developing world.  It will increase job opportunity and improve health for children around the world.

Most recently, G20 leaders pledged to complete the Doha Development Round.

What do you think?

Source

“Il y a une bombe sous la reprise actuelle, l’endettement public”, s’est inquiété vendredi le directeur général de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) Pascal Lamy.

La France avait “un début de déficit budgétaire considérable, donc forcément en cas de crise au moment où il faut remettre de l’argent public pour faire tourner l’économie, cela s’aggrave”, a estimé M. Lamy sur Radio Classique.

“Il va falloir expliquer aux citoyens, aux citoyennes et aux agents économiques comment on va traiter cette montagne de dettes qui est en train de grossir et de s’accumuler”,

a souligné M. Lamy.

“Laisser aux générations futures un montant pareil dans un monde dans lequel l’inflation a été la recette classique (…) ce n’est plus possible”,

a ajouté le directeur.

Interdiction de sourire.

Os Estados Unidos continuam sem assumir a liderança e sem dar um impulso por um acordo na Rodada Doha em 2010 que poderia resultar em cortes dos subsídios agrícolas. E no meio da paralisia americana, restará ao Brasil preparar a retaliação de US$ 800 milhões contra produtos americanos no contencioso do algodão.

Não vai ser de imediato que o Brasil apresentará a lista de retaliação na OMC. Primeiro,vai aguardar a conclusão do atual ano fiscal (no fim de setembro) do Orçamento americano, depois vai tentar obter os dados dos subsídios, em seguida calcular o valor da sanção, e só então vai aprontar a lista, definindo o que será aplicado sobre mercadorias e na área de propriedade intelectual. A OMC deu o sinal verde para retaliação de US$ 247 milhões.

Na disputa ganha pelo Brasil na OMC contra os americanos, os juízes confirmaram que os subsídios dos Estados Unidos efetivamente deprimem os preços internacionais De cada US$ 200 milhões de subvenção, resulta queda de 1% no preço. Pelo ritmo da ajuda, o desmoronamento na cotação pode chegar a 20%, dependendo do ano.

Pascal Lamy (diretor-geral da OMC) está conduzindo dezenas de reuniões com os países esta semana, na tentativa de retomar a Rodada Doha. Mas sem os americanos é impossível. A mensagem a ser levada aos líderes do G-20, realisticamente, não pode ser de que a negociação tem chance de ser concluída em 2010. Enquanto isso, crescem as pressões protecionistas.

Clique aqui e leia na íntegra

Postado por Flávio 7

Para Lamy, apenas adotar barreiras a produtos de países poluidores não vai trazer resultado desejado

Antônio Martins Neto

Um fracasso na Convenção das Nações Unidas Sobre Mudanças Climáticas (COP15), que ocorerrá em dezembro em Copenhague, na Dinamarca, poderá prejudicar severamente o comércio internacional, alertou o diretor-geral da Organizaação Mundial do Comércio (OMC), Pascal Lamy.

“Eu sinceramente espero que (um acordo) ocorra em Copenhague. Caso isso não aconteça, nosso trabalho na OMC vai se tornar ainda mais difícil”, disse Lamy ao jornal britânico Financial Times.

Ele se referia ao fato de alguns países imporem taxas e barreiras similares a produtos oriundos de nações com baixo padrão de proteção do meio ambiente.

Segundo Lamy, essa forma de comércio só se tornará forte se um acordo mais abrangente suceder o Protocolo de Kyoto.

“Apenas adotar barreiras não vai nos fazer atingir o resultado desejado. Depender de barreiras comerciais para solucionar os problemas globais do meio ambiente não vai funcionar. Eu tenho a firme convicção de que a relação entre o comércio internacional e as mudanças climáticas vão ser definidas a partir de um acordo consensual (sic) internacional capaz de engajar todos os grandes países poluidores”, disse Pascal Lamy.

Veja aqui matéria de Morten Andersen

In April 2009, Trade Minister Stockwell Day expressed concern that what at the time was the proposed “Buy American” bill was representative of the same kind of U.S. protectionism “that fueled the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Citing the “Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930″ (Smoot-Stonehouse Tariff Act), Canadian Chamber of Commerce President Perrin Beatty suggested that the “danger with something like this is that its a spark in the forest.”

From a global community perspective World Trade Organization director-general Pascal Lamy warned that trade barriers “will make the global economy worse.”

While there are to be certain, parallels that can be drawn between the Smoot-Stonehouse Tariff Act which was signed into law on June 17th, 1930 and resulted in raised tariffs on 20,000 imported goods into the United States, and the current day Buy American requirements in the U.S. Recovery Act, are they really the same.  Is it really U.S. protectionism or autarky?

How does the fact that we now live in a vastly different world than the one our parents lived in when the Smoot-Stonehouse Tariff Act was passed in 1930 change the cause and effect dynamics of the Buy America policy?  Is today’s interdependent globalized economy that includes emerging knowledge-based industries that much different from the agricultural-industrial sectors that drove a nation’s economic engine in the 1930s.

As demonstrated by both Minister Day’s and Mr. Beatty’s references, the Smoot- Stonehouse Tariff Act is considered by many to have been a major factor in terms of causing the 1930’s Great Depression.  But is the enduring legacy of the 1930 act manifesting itself in the Canadian Government’s offer to guarantee the U.S. “access to the provinces’ public purchases in exchange for a quick waiver of Buy American provisions?”  If it is, would one be tempted to see the strategy as being more in line with the old saying that “generals are always fighting the last war,” rather than an effective present-day response to what may very well be an entirely different set of circumstances?

Another element of this discussion for which clarity of impact is required relates to the Canadian companies that according to some reports “have been frozen” out of lucrative American stimulus-spending contracts.  What sector or sectors  of the economy do these organizations represent, and is regaining this lost access worth enough to the Canadian economy as whole to justify what one article suggested is an offer that “would effectively throw city and provincial transit and road-building contracts open to guaranteed U.S. competition.”  It would not be unreasonable to assume that the U.S. Government would not accept merely having access to these kinds of contracts as sufficient reason to waive the Buy American policy.  One would suspect that with the granting of access the U.S.-based suppliers would be favorably placed to win a lions share of the contracts.  Otherwise why would the Americans agree to what would amount to nothing more than a empty gesture.

This then brings us back to one of many important questions for which at this point in time there are no clear answers.  For example, are the companies (and the industry sectors within which they operate) that will benefit the most from the trade promises being made by the Canadian Government significant contributors to the overall health of our domestic economy?  Are these industry sectors part of the mid to long-term economic picture?  Upon which domestic sectors is guaranteed access to “the provinces’ public purchases” likely to have the greatest negative impact?  Are these sectors part of the mid to long-term Canadian economic picture?

I once traded away Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito rookie cards for a 5 cent tri-colored super ball.  Good thing they were my older brother’s cards else I would have really felt like I had been taken to the cleaners.

Banking on a statute of limitations for trading card infractions, I had no idea what the rookie cards were worth.  Without having a clear cut understanding of the true human and financial impact, are the trade promises being offered in exchange for the Buy American waiver going to be our government’s super ball?

I for one do not have the answers, and the burden associated with navigating the complex and potentially highly charged waters of this particular issue, must weigh heavy on the shoulders of our government leaders.  But we do need clarity one way or the other.  This includes not only the estimates and expectations of the present course of action being pursued.  It also includes a equally clear understanding of the inherent risks.

Over the next five weeks leading up to our September 28th PI Window on Business broadcast “Is The Canadian Government Bartering Away The Domestic SME Market?” I will be posting at least one article per week on the Buy American story.

Upcoming posts will examine the differences between the economic climate in 1930 and 2009 to determine if there are indeed parallels to be drawn and used to achieve a collective best result outcome.

I will also examine the differences between the Smoot-Stonehouse Tariff Act and the current Buy American requirements associated with the present U.S. Recovery Act.  Is it as many fear protectionism revisited, or is it more Autarky?

Trade Minister Stockwell Day to be a guest on the September 28th PI Window on Business Show

Over the past couple of days I have had a number of exchanges with Minister Day’s office, and based on the last e-mail I received the Minister will in fact join myself and a distinguished guest panel on-air to provide a brief overview of the government’s strategy relating to the Buy American policy.

Given his incredibly busy schedule, it will be a brief appearance in which we will provide the Minister with an uninterrupted platform to share his insights with us on this important issue.  At the conclusion of the Minister’s talk, a guest panel of both Canadian as well as international experts will discuss what was said, as well as provide their own take on what the Buy American policy means both domestically as well as globally.

Look for the guest panel bios as well as additional segment information starting next week in both the Procurement Insights and PI Window on Business Blogs.

In the meantime use the On-Demand Player below to access the September 28th broadcast or visit the PI Window on Business Show Page.

Remember to check out September’s Line-Up:

Bookmark & Share

Mondiaal Nieuws

Jarenlang hield de politieke instabiliteit de nodige hervormingen tegen, maar nu lijkt Libanon goed op weg om toe te treden tot de Wereldhandelsorganisatie (WTO). Pascal Lamy, de directeur-generaal van de WTO, klinkt alvast optimistisch.

“Het toetredingsproces verloopt goed”, verklaarde Lamy eerder deze maand in Genève. “Libanon staat bovenaan de lijst met landen die lid willen worden. Veel van het wetgevende werk dat nog moet gebeuren heeft te maken met intellectuele eigendomsrechten, de registratie van bedrijven en het verwijderen van technische handelsbelemmeringen”.

Piraterij

De betere bescherming van intellectueel eigendom is misschien wel de grootste uitdaging. Piraterij is wijdverspreid in Libanon.

Een ander moeilijk punt is de liberalisering van sectoren als de telecommunicatie. “Privatisering was een wereldwijde trend, maar door de economische crisis is daar verandering in gekomen”, argumenteerde Walid Jumblat, een toppoliticus die deel uitmaakt van de meerderheid in het Libanese parlement, in interviews met Libanese kranten.

Lama Oueijan, een adviseur van de Libanese minister van Economie en hoofd van de WTO-eenheid in Libanon, gelooft dat er een oplossing is voor die bekommernis. “De staat moet zijn aandelen in de telecombedrijven niet verkopen, het is ook mogelijk alleen het management te privatiseren”. Volgens Oueijan wil de WTO vooral dat de processen die economische sectoren vorm geven transparant verlopen en dat concurrenten gelijke kansen krijgen.

Kansen en risico’s

De voorstanders geloven dat de toetreding de exportkansen van Libanon zal verbeteren, de prijzen van veel producten in het land zal doen dalen en de kwaliteit van diensten erop vooruit zal helpen.

Maar Libanese boeren, cementbedrijven, keramiekproducenten en textielbedrijven vrezen de verlaging van de invoerheffingen die de WTO eist. Volgens Landbouwminister Elias Skaff is de toetreding een tweesnijdend zwaard. “We zullen toegang krijgen tot meer markten, maar ook meer concurrentie krijgen, vooral in de landbouwsector”. Libanon heeft hogere loonkosten en daardoor duurdere producten dan veel andere landen in de regio. Volgens sommige experts is de Libanese landbouwmarkt ook niet goed genoeg gestructureerd om de concurrentie met producenten van andere landen aan te gaan.

Oueijan merkt op dat gevoelige sectoren beschermd kunnen worden met speciale invoertarieven die kunnen oplopen tot 70 procent. Die tarieven moeten wel onderhandeld worden tussen Libanon en de landen van de betrokken invoerders.

7 July 2009

AID FOR TRADE

Director-General Pascal Lamy, at the closing session of the second global review of Aid for Trade on 7 July 2009, said “we have to maintain momentum and ensure that commitments are met.” Underlining the need to actively mobilize additional resources, he welcomed announcements of substantial commitments from Japan ($12 billion for 2009-11), the United Kingdom (£1 billion per year), the Netherlands (550 million euros per year) and France (850 million euros per year).

DG closing remarks

Thank you, Ambassador Servansing.

This has been an extremely useful session and I am very happy that I could be with all of you, not only to listen to your experiences about how Aid for Trade is working in your countries, but also to listen to your suggestions about the way forward.

One key aspect of the dialogue which we have had is that it has helped bring the trade practitioners and the development professionals closer to jointly move the Aid for Trade initiative.

If you work on agricultural development, you aim to increase the productivity of farmers so they sell more food products, both domestically and across borders. If you are involved in infrastructure development, you want those food products to travel along the roads and railways or through the ports and airports which you have built. And so on. Clearly, trade impinges on all sectors of the economy; it’s not a sector on its own — and it is this realisation that is important.

This fact also strengthens the case for mainstreaming trade into national development strategies. In the discussion over these two days, we heard how economic and social benefits can accrue from trade opening provided trade is mainstreamed. The reality is that trade pervades the fabric of global society. As the UN Secretary General said yesterday, “building more trade capacity is essential because trade can and must be part of our efforts to stimulate a recovery.” As one of you said today: Aid for Trade is now firmly established in the agenda for integrating developing countries into the trading system.

The centrepiece of this Second Review has been the joint OECD-WTO Aid for Trade at a Glance 2009. This publication shows trade is being prioritized by partner countries in national development strategies; donors are offering more and better Aid for Trade and new partners are becoming engaged in South-South cooperation. Furthermore, the increase in allocation to Aid for Trade has been achieved without reducing resources to other development priorities such as health, education or environment.

Aid for Trade grew by 10 per cent per year between 2005 and 2007; if you add non-concessional aid from international financial institutions, the figures nearly double in value.

A message which comes from these meetings is that we need to refine our monitoring in understanding how Aid for Trade is working in tandem with other financial instruments, in particular those offered by the international financial institutions. Not all supply side or economic infrastructure constraints can or will be addressed through an Aid for Trade response. For example, we have heard of various examples of how grant financing has been blended with other financing instruments.

As I said at the opening, if Aid for Trade was urgent in 2007, it is essential today. We have to maintain momentum and ensure that commitments are met. This implies an on-going role for the monitoring framework which our colleagues at the OECD are constantly refining. It also means refining the methodology and reporting. It is a fact that the activities of South-South partners, of which we have heard so much today, and which are growing in volume and importance, are not captured in the Aid for Trade numbers generated by the OECD. We need to give some attention to this as better coordination, which we are trying to achieve, is difficult without better information.

The three break-out sessions of this morning have highlighted the indispensable role of our regional partners. Through the work of the bilateral donors, regional development banks, regional economic commissions and regional economic communities, we have been able to make significant progress on implementation. I remain convinced that we need to build upon the progress we have achieved in strengthening the regional dimension of Aid for Trade.

This morning we also learnt that Aid for Trade needs to factor in specificities; for example, those of middle-income countries and the types of financing available to them; or those of landlocked countries, small economies, remote islands or countries emerging out of conflict.

Numerous interventions from the floor have further reinforced the message which we received during the monitoring exercise when we received 88 replies from our developing country members. Developing countries are taking ownership of their own initiative. Indeed, there seems to be a pent-up demand which is being finally released. This means that Aid for Trade is maturing. But at the same time Aid for Trade is a long-term endeavour which needs to be sustained over a long time. Our partners have reacted well to the lead taken by the WTO. We must allow them now to define their own roles in this process and participate further.

This is coherence in global economic policymaking in action. And it must happen at three levels. At national level through constructive dialogue between governments and their development partners; at regional level between regional economic commissions and their member governments, with international financial institutions and donors; and at multilateral level by keeping the spotlight on Aid for Trade in the G8, which I will attend tomorrow, the G20, the annual meetings of the Bank and Fund, the annual meetings of the regional development banks and so on. Now that we have generated this momentum, we must keep our foot on the gas and agree on a common destination.

So what next ?

At the 11 June meeting of the Committee on Trade and Development, I noted that we need to develop a framework that will allow us to better coordinate our efforts, mobilize additional resources, enhance political ownership and better prepare the way forward. In my view there are four very clear objectives which should inform our work going forward.

First, I believe that we need to build upon the progress we have achieved in strengthening the regional dimension of Aid for Trade. We will rely mainly on our regional partners including the development banks and bilateral donors to take the lead in evolving clear and focused regional Aid for Trade projects. We have an opportunity to advance this agenda by holding an ECOWAS Aid for Trade event in the Fall. I will be looking for similar opportunities in other regions. I would note that the Islamic Development Bank, UNECE and UNDP have already agreed on a roadmap with the economies of Central Asia.

Second, I believe we need also to enhance the role and contribution of the private sector in this initiative. Yesterday’s private sector session gave us much food for thought, particularly as regards the particular challenges of bringing SMEs into the picture is concerned. It also underlined how the imperative to respond to the pressing challenge of climate change, which can at once be a challenge but also an opportunity to unleash investment opportunity. The same can be said for helping meet international standards as well as increasing access to energy. One suggestion which particularly resonated was that of building partnerships with private foundations to tap into their resources and capacities to deliver effective and adequate Aid for Trade. Another suggestion was to focus business involvement in a specific sector such as logistics which cuts across a wide range of Aid for Trade activities.

Third, we should continue our evaluation work with specific focus on evaluating the impact of Aid for Trade. Aid for Trade should develop as a community of best practice. A first step in this direction is to inventory what is out there. The second is to look at common frameworks. We need to ensure also that we are not just measuring inputs and outputs, but tangible outcomes. I hold strongly the view that as national budgets come under increasing pressure, so we need to step up our efforts to show the value of what we are doing with evidence-based reporting on outcomes. As was mentioned by Mr Kuroda of the Asian Development Bank yesterday, in 1997 it took three days to pass goods from China to Thailand via Lao PD; in 2009, it takes four hours. If this is not a positive example of Aid for Trade, what is? In order to move further on this, we will as usual rely heavily on our partners. The WTO itself neither has the mandate, nor the capacity, to undertake its own evaluation of Aid for Trade.

Lastly, I believe we need to continue to actively mobilize additional resources and in particular, start looking beyond 2010. We have had reasonably clear commitments by donors up to 2010; we now need more clarity about the post 2010 horizon. Japan has given us cause for optimism. The commitment they offered of $12 billion over the period 2009-11 is up $2 billion in comparison with the commitment made for 2006-2008. The announcement made yesterday afternoon by Minister Thomas that the UK will spend around £1 billion sterling a year over the next three years to enhance growth and trade in poorer countries is also satisfying. The Netherlands indicated its commitment to spend at least €550 million per year on all categories of Aid for Trade. I just heard the French delegation announce a minimum of €850 million per year from 2010 that is + 50 per cent as compared with the 2002/2005 benchmark. This, of course, over and above fulfilment of their existing commitments. I would encourage other members to follow their lead. Mobilizing Aid for Trade resources will remain essential to help developing countries be prepared to better exit the crises, including by encouraging South-South Aid for Trade partnerships.

These are some ideas which come from these two days of discussions. They are not entirely new but what is more important is to now discuss them and turn them into your own work plan. I see a critical role for the CTD in ensuring our continued success. But we also need to ensure that we hear the views of the development partners.

I believe that we should reflect on what has been said at this Global Review and try to come up with a work plan which will give us direction and consistency, and which can also be fed into the Ministerial Conference, for its possible consideration in early December.

In so doing, we will have given ourselves clarity in approach and commonality in purpose — necessary ingredients to maintaining momentum on Aid for Trade.

I would like to finish by mentioning the context in which this Conference takes place: our efforts to conclude the Doha Round. As Cambodian Trade Minister Cham Prasidh said yesterday: “Aid for Trade and the Doha Round are Siamese twins. They cannot be separated because they share one heart.”

Thank you.

O diretor-geral da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC), Pascal Lamy, pediu que os países resistam às tendências protecionistas e disse que está havendo um “bom progresso” em direção ao relançamento da Rodada Doha de livre comércio.

Lamy disse que os governos buscam um acordo para fornecer a “energia política necessária” ao reinício da Rodada Doha.

“Temos de tentar encerrar essas negociações e já percorremos 80% do caminho”, declarou, acrescentando que “um pouco de energia política é necessário para concluir o processo de forma bem-sucedida”.

Na segunda-feira, Lamy se reuniu com o representante de Comércio dos EUA, Ron Kirk, e o recém-nomeado ministro do Comércio da Índia, Anand Sharma.

Kirk, ex-prefeito de Dallas que foi designado para o posto em março pelo presidente Barack Obama, também se reuniu brevemente com membros da delegação chinesa, às margens do encontro de ministros.

Com agências

05 June 2009

The University of Geneva during its celebration of its 450th anniversary on 5 June 2009 conferred the title of doctor honoris causa on Director-General Pascal Lamy along with Dr Lyndon Rees Evans, Mrs Mary Robinson and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. In his speech, Mr Lamy said “globalization and the opening up of trade can work in favour of universal human rights, by which I mean civil and political rights as well as economic and social rights”. This is what he said:

Dies Academicus Ceremony of Award of a Doctor Honoris Causa — Geneva

Mr Rector,
Mr President of the Grand Council,
Mr Councillor of State,
Distinguished Deans and Professors,
Dear students,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

By conferring on me the title of doctor honoris causa, in this place and on this day of celebration, the University of Geneva does me a great honour.

To share this distinction with those who are more illustrious than myself touches me deeply.

By assigning me the task of expressing my views on human rights in the globalizing world while at the side of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man I consider a hero of modern times, shows a boldness and daring befitting a great university.

Perhaps your boldness was inspired by the legacy of William Rappard, twice Rector of your University, a man who devoted his life’s work to the pursuit of peace, and a man whose name graces the headquarters of the World Trade Organization.

Notwithstanding the illustrious patronage, your boldness verges on the reckless! Is not the World Trade Organization for many the symbol of a globalization in which mercantile pursuits have precedence over human beings, the market over individuals, and might over right?

It is for me, then, to try and show that you are right: globalization and the opening up of trade can work in favour of universal human rights, by which I mean civil and political rights as well as economic and social rights.

And I say “can” advisedly, because in my view this is true only in certain conditions that need to be specified and that are far from being fulfilled everywhere.

First, globalization.

Globalization is commonly understood to be an historical phase in the evolution of market capitalism whose development is essentially technological in nature. Similar to what was witnessed in the nineteenth century at the time of the industrial revolution. Janus globalization: with a pleasant, smiling face, portraying economic dynamism, innovation, connection, proximity, from the perspective of the universal city. And the forbidding, grimacing face, that of fracture, imbalance, contagion. The face of environmental degradation, which dispossesses, uproots and tramples underfoot the identities and cultures that compose human dignity.

I believe that the good of globalization can outweigh the bad.

Provided each of us recognizes that we need to belong as much as we need our freedom.

Provided we accept that such belonging and such freedom are exercised in a universal and collective framework, a globalization which is harnessed and regulated by policy and law.

Provided we endorse the idea that the democratic principle needs renewal if it is to go beyond the local and penetrate the global — this is what we call global governance.

Provided we acknowledge that this implies fundamental changes to the “Westphalian” principle whereby international governance remains the monopoly of Nation States, including in the area of human rights, which know no borders.

Provided we forge a global governance that blends political drive, democratic legitimacy and technical excellence. Perhaps we are seeing this emerge in the triangle now taking form in pursuit of a solution to the current economic crisis, the first truly global crisis. Between the “G 20” pole, the United Nations General Assembly pole, and the pole of the specialized international agencies including the World Trade Organization, the International Labour Organization, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, to name but a few.

Provided all these conditions are met — and there is much work to be done here — globalization can embody the promise of a universal set of values common to so many philosophies or religions, and to which human rights belong as they now belong to “jus cogens”. These are norms which cannot be transgressed and which are accepted on that basis by the entire international community.

It is in such a universal framework that the contribution of trade liberalization to the promotion of human rights can and must find its place both in law and in practice.

Jurists debate at length whether the WTO is bound to respect human rights, but in my eyes the answer is a clear yes. Human rights has its place in international law first, because these rights are incumbent on the members of the Organization and because they themselves are bound to fulfil the obligations incumbent on them at international level.

Next, because the case law of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism acknowledged that international trade law could not be interpreted “in clinical isolation” from international law in general. And, incidentally, how could the WTO — created in 1994 by an international legal instrument — be immune to the rules of the general international law from which it derives its mission and its very existence?

But what is the place of international trade law in promoting human rights in practice? I would argue that opening international trade creates efficiency for raising standards and conditions of living and in this way can contribute to implementing rights which require more than mere proclamation if they are to be respected. This is particularly true in the case of those whom Amnesty International calls the “prisoners of poverty”. As an example, I cite Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which concerns the right to food and advocates “taking into account the problems of both food importing and food exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need”.

Here again, the benefit of trade opening for human rights is not automatic. It presupposes rules that are both global and just. Rules of the kind that prompted Lacordaire to say that “between the weak and the strong, poor and the rich … , liberty is the oppressor and the law is freedom”. Negotiating and implementing such rules is the WTO’s basic mission, and its primary vocation in so doing is to regulate and not to deregulate as is often thought.

It also presupposes the existence of social policies, whether to secure redistribution or provide safeguards for the men and women whose living conditions are disrupted by changes in the international division of labour.

This is what I have called, in a context somewhat different from the heart of Protestant Rome where we have been received this morning, the “Geneva Consensus”, under which the opening up of trade is necessary to our collective well being, but does not suffice in itself.

It does not suffice unless it is accompanied by policies designed to correct the imbalances between winners and losers; and the greater the vulnerability of economies, societies or individuals, the more dangerous the imbalances. It does not suffice unless it goes hand in hand with a sustained international effort to help the developing countries to build the capacity they need to take advantage of open markets.

If by way of conclusion I had to pinpoint one principle governing the conditions in which globalization and the opening up of trade must help to promote and ensure respect for human rights, I would say that it is coherence:

Coherence is the political commitment of citizens, of civil society, of trade unions, between the local and the global. Today the world needs more coherence in the organization of governments between national and global, more coherence between the different islands making up the archipelago of international governance.

I would add that much of this coherence remains to be built, and I see this as a vocation for the University of Geneva, whose ambition, as in centuries past, is perhaps to add a stone to the intellectual edifice and contribute to the dialogue on which our understanding of this world depends, to ensure greater harmony, and to give greater meaning to the notion of global public good.

By cultivating the fruit of this interdisciplinary approach, which unites you in the search for a truth that is common to the science of matter, of the body and of the mind;

By working to build the bridge that etymology inspires us to build between the universitas magistrorum et scolarium and the universus mundus;

By honouring the tradition of international Geneva, of the city that has taken in so many great minds, that has hosted so many institutions engaged in the common pursuit of peace.

By awarding me this distinction today, dear friends, you have added to my responsibilities. It is for me, now, to propose that in future, we share this responsibility by working to build an international order in which, to quote Jean Jacques Rousseau, “The stronger is never strong enough to be forever master, unless he transforms his force into right, and obedience into duty”. To which Simone Weil added, on a more personal and meditative note: “It is a duty for every man to uproot himself in order to attain the universal, but it is always a crime to uproot others.”

Thank you for your attention.

Scarcely a fortnight after the G-20’s London summit, one finds news that makes reference to confronted views on how to tackle the global crisis. Such is the case in Latin America’s varied stances on protectionism.

Smiling Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva shook hands after their hour-long meeting during her visit to Brazil but it was evident that the Argentinean President stood firm on her posture to apply customs controls on imported goods. In fact, she counterattacked critics of her steadfast stand on Argentina’s “fair trade” customs tariff policies by accusing those who devaluate their currencies as “fiscal” protectionists. Differences between Argentina y Brazil on the protectionist issue date back to before the official recognition of a global world economic crisis.

In fact, Argentina’s stand has put MERCOSUR in a stalemate position due to difference with neighbouring Uruguay on the San Martin Bridge conflict that has alluded to the illegal construction of a pulp factory just across the Argentina-Uruguay border. Nevertheless, Argentina’s protectionist attitude goes beyond the supposed ecological issue into an intended blockade of free circulation of goods and citizens from one country to another. Lula’s mediator posture and clear defence of free circulation within the scope of the MERCOSUR member states in the near future has not produced the desirable effects on her Argentinean counterpart. True to say, whimsy Cristina Fernández could be annoyed by Brazil’s failure to intervene before President Obama to concede her a bilateral interview at the London meeting.

Unfortunately, in spite of the WTO Director General’s insistence that protectionism will only serve to aggravate the present global economic crisis, nations all over the world seem to have turned towards a more conservative stand on this issue. The impasse that has the Doha Development Round at a stalemate since 2001 is not only caused by Latin American discrepancies among MERCOSUR or UNASUR member states but rather extended to protectionist “fair trade” policies presently applied by developed nations in defence of their own products, especially so in the agricultural sector. To cite an example, strong subsidies to cotton producers in the United State stifle intents to develop cotton plantations in African countries where such production would permit numerous labourers to earn a minimum daily wage to quench their prolonged hunger. Oxfam International has repeatedly accused of such practices in this and other issues whereby Africa is subjected to a humiliating situation of depending merely on developed nations’ cooperation aids.

Such conservative stance which has protectionism as a mechanism to block cheaper quality products from a territory will only serve to deepen the breach of mistrust among nations that have no other way out of this crisis but to work together with the developed countries. I must remark that it is insufficient, and probably even improper, to resource to multi-state cooperation aids and donors’ conferences to raise such funds without making a decided attempt to turn impoverished nations into independent self-sufficient productive economic entities. No matter how much money is poured into African, Asian and Latin American poor and/or developing states to quench their alimentary & health basic needs, the problem will persist as long as such beneficiaries are impeded from turning self-sufficient. And protectionism is the worst ally in attempting to motivate the less favoured citizenry of this world in crisis.

Madrid, April 24, 2009                 

Pascal Lamy, Director General de la Organización Mundial de Comercio

A pesar de las advertencias en sentido contrario, la semana pasada delegados comerciales acordaron que la economía mundial no está siendo presa de batallas y represalias proteccionistas desde que iniciara la crisis financiera en septiembre del año pasado. Sin embargo, en los últimos meses ha habido una tendencia a imponer nuevas medidas restrictivas al comercio, aseguró el Director General de la OMC, Pascal Lamy, a los Miembros de la OMC, instándolos a “permanecer vigilantes” para resistir a las presiones para cerrar sus fronteras al comercio.

Las cifras de comercio han caído precipitadamente desde el comienzo de la crisis. La OMC predijo en marzo que los flujos comerciales mundiales experimentarían una caída del nueve por ciento este año, la más dramática de los últimos 60 años (ver Puentes Quincenal, Vol. 6, No. 5, 7 de abril de 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/puentesquincenal/44701/)

Muchos observadores han advertido que un cambio de dirección hacia el proteccionismo pronunciaría y prolongaría las dificultades económicas por las que el comercio internacional está atravesando, tanto como los aranceles impuestos por la ley Smoot Hawley, la cual en los años treinta jugó un papel importantísimo para que la recesión se transformara en la mayor depresión económica del siglo XX.

Sin embargo, por ahora los sondeos parecen ser más favorables. “No hay indicios de una recaída inminente en un proteccionismo de gran intensidad que conlleve un recurso generalizado a la restricción del comercio y la adopción de medidas de retorsión”, dijo Lamy en la reunión llevada a cabo el 14 de abril. “Las normas comerciales multilaterales establecidas a lo largo de los últimos 60 años siguen constituyendo un sólido bastión para impedir que tal cosa ocurra”, agregó.  No obstante debemos permanecer vigilantes y evitar respuestas nacionalistas a la crisis”, advirtió.

El Director General convocó a los negociadores a discutir en esa ocasión el informe de la OMC sobre las medidas proteccionistas tomadas por los Miembros, el cual fue a dado conocer el 26 de marzo (ver Puentes Quincenal, Vol. 6, No. 5, 7 de abril de 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/puentesquincenal/44710/). El informe, el segundo de Lamy, concluyó que ha habido un “deterioro significativo” de la situación. El primer informe de la misma naturaleza encontró solamente “evidencia limitada” hacia la tendencia proteccionistas (ver Puentes Quincenal, Vol. 6,, No. 2, 10 de febrero de 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/puentesquincenal/40312/)

EE.UU. no coinciden con Lamy

La calificación del Director General de la situación actual no fue bien recibida por todos los asistentes a la reunión en comento. Algunos delegados hicieron observaciones respecto a la redacción y la semántica del documento.

”Entendemos el peligro del incremento de restricciones pero no creemos que los hechos ratifiquen la sugerencia en la introducción del informe de que ´ha habido un deterioro significativo´ desde el comienzo del año”, dijo Peter Allgeier, Embajador de los EE.UU. ante la OMC, quien agregó que la frase ´cierto deterioro´ era más apropiada.

”En general, frente a fuertes presiones en muchas capitales, fuertes medidas proteccionistas se han evitado”, agregó.

Hong Kong presenta propuesta para congelar restricciones comerciales

Uno de los momento más destacables de esa reunión, fue cuando Hong Kong propuso un congelamiento temporal de todas las medidas restrictivas al comercio. Bajo dicha iniciativa, los Miembros de la OMC voluntariamente se comprometerían a “abstenerse, por un periodo” de imponer medidas que restringirían o bien distorsionarían el comercio.

El delegado de Hong Kong comentó que ese tipo de compromisos que asumirían los Miembros, serían adicionales a sus obligaciones en el marco de la OMC. Actualmente muchos de los Miembros mantienen aranceles y subsidios muy por debajo de sus niveles de compromiso en la OMC. De tal forma, en muchos de los casos los países pueden imponer barreras al comercio sin que por ello violen la normativa de la OMC. No obstante, bajo la propuesta de Hong Kong, la cual según esa delegación cuenta con el respaldo de varios países, esta situación cambiaría.

Proseguirá monitoreo

En sus palabras a los delegados, Lamy explicó que el monitoreo de cerca a las nuevas políticas comerciales de los Miembros era crucial para contribuir a la recuperación de la economía. Este tipo de ejercicio, afirmó, aumenta la transparencia ya que ponen las decisiones gubernamentales bajo la mira, y por lo tanto ejerce presión para resistirse al proteccionismo. Enfatizó que las delegaciones han sido ampliamente cooperativas durante el proceso de recopilación de información.

Un total de 30 delegaciones que intervinieron durante la reunión coincidieron en que el escrutinio público que se estaba realizando era una herramienta fundamental para combatir el proteccionismo.

”La importancia de una gran vigilancia en el seguimiento de la situación es evidente”, comentó el Embajador de los EE.UU., Peter Allgeier.

El próximo informe de la OMC sobre proteccionismo será dado a conocer a mediados de junio, dijo Lamy.

Reportaje de ICTSD y CINPE. Por favor, visitar el siguiente site: http://ictsd.net/i/news/puentesquincenal/45358/

Pascal Lamy, the director-general of the World Trade Organization, has been warning political leaders around the world to refrain from responding to the global finance crisis by enacting protectionist measures that will only cause trade flows to shrink even further. 

On Jan. 26, Mr. Lamy circulated to the WTO’s 153 member countries a confidential 114-page report that documented unsettling ongoing efforts by various countries to close their borders to imports. While the Europeans (with new farm subsidies for cheese and dairy products) and Americans (with various “Buy American” provisions in the $787 billion economic-stimulus package) were the focus of much of the criticism, the report also singled out such Asian protectionist offenders as India, Indonesia and South Korea. This month, Mr. Lamy sent another “restricted” report to WTO members, which provide further documentations of the spreading global economic nationalism.

Mr. Lamy’s Jan. 26 confidential report noted that “India raised tariffs on some steel products and issued notifications restricting imports of some steel products in November 2008.” And in South Korea the WTO report observed that tariffs will triple on crude-oil imports, to 3% from 1%. Meanwhile Indonesia has issued orders specifying that “only five ports and certain international airports are to serve as entry points for certain imports, such as electronics, garments, toys, footwear, and food and beverages,” Mr. Lamy’s confidential report observed.

Asian officials, like their counterparts in Europe and the United States, all seem to think that protectionism is an evil economic practice that the other guys give in to. When India recently slapped on import curbs to keep Chinese-made toys out of the hands of Indian children, Trade Minister Nath earnestly explained that the “public interest” was at stake, and expressed pain at the suggestion that India would resort to “protectionism.” As for India’s raising tariffs on steel—competition from China is the main target—Mr. Nath claimed that China deserved the increased duties because the Middle Kingdom isn’t a real market economy. Meanwhile, while the Chinese have vigorously protested India’s protectionism, they have also been busy with new subsidies and trade barriers to protect Chinese exporters, including domestic steel producers. The Indonesians are also making moves to protect their domestic steel companies, complaining that Indonesian consumers prefer foreign steel because it is made from more advanced technology and is cheaper. Such assertions might be laughable in respected economic circles, but the top trade officials are skilled in uttering them with straight faces.

One has to marvel at the logic, if not the audacity. South Korea, with an annual per capita GDP of about $27,000 (compared to $1,500 for Bangladesh) is asking the WTO to pretend that Korea is basically a basket case. Mr. Lamy’s retort to this is not a matter of public record, but presumably the WTO head is aware that Korea is a member of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, along with other rich countries like France, Germany and the United States.

But then Japan is also asking that its uncompetitive rice farmers be treated as poor-country peasants in the Doha negotiations. In Tokyo, the definition of a free trader is anyone who would dare to be brave enough to suggest that the proper level for Japanese tariffs on imported rice should be “only” 400% and not twice that.

Another thing that Japan and Korea, along with many others, agree upon is that the “Buy American” provisions that are in U.S. President Barack Obama’s stimulus package are outrageous protectionism. Again, the hypocrisy-meter should be hitting the high decibels at this point. If Washington’s autarkic practices are deplorable, what about their Japanese and Korean copycats? Both Asian nations have also carved out special exemptions in the WTO to restrict foreigners from their governments’ major construction projects—big-ticket items including water, electricity, airports and urban transport. There is also a threshold of $22 million below which the Japanese and Koreans have the right to bar foreigners from contracts altogether. Meanwhile, other countries such as China that are now busy issuing press releases blasting the Buy American laws haven’t even been willing to sign on to the WTO’s government-procurement agreement at all—ensuring that in their own construction projects, it’s quite often a “Buy Chinese” business where foreigners are not welcome.

If there is any country where officials should recognize the vital importance of their assuming leadership by their own sound economic example, that would be the U.S., which is still the strongest economy in the world. But in Washington, the current wave of economic nationalism threatens to become a tsunami. From a free-trade perspective, the atmosphere in Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives is positively poisonous. Consider one “economic idea” that the venerable Rep. Charles Rangel, who chairs the powerful Ways and Means Committee with jurisdiction over trade and taxes, has come up with. Mr. Rangel is pushing a bill called the Trade Enforcement Act of 2009. “America’s trading partners don’t always live up to the commitments they make in trade agreements with the United States—and the Bush administration too often failed to insist that they do,” Mr. Rangel explained when he introduced the legislation. The measure would create an Office of Congressional Trade Enforcer, which would “investigate barriers to U.S. exports, develop complaints against foreign countries,” and pressure the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (an arm of the White House) “to file cases” against the foreign cheaters—singling out China as a high priority for the suspicious U.S. congressional sleuths.

And while on the subject of American-style protectionism that makes no economic sense, consider the political position that the new occupant of the White House has put himself in. During last year’s presidential campaign, Barack Obama took out a radio advertisement in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, home of the iconic Harley-Davidson motorcycles, in which the Democratic candidate ridiculed Republican rival John McCain for refusing to say that there ought to be Buy American laws for motorcycles. Sounds good, especially to economically illiterate American voters. But how far would President Obama get if he hopped on one of those famous Fat Boys that didn’t have its Japanese-sourced carburetor in it? Or the tires, brakes, wheels, or the electronics that Harley-Davidson buys at the best prices and highest qualities it can find, whether domestic or foreign? Not to mention that Harley-Davidson makes significant profits from selling its Hogs around the world. Harley executives declined to be interviewed for their feelings on what would happen to their company if, say, the Chinese and Japanese refused to buy American motorcycles, in a tit-for-tat response to a Buy American favor for Harley. But they surely understand that Mr. Obama’s helpful economic advice would be ruinous.

When such absurdities are (painfully) pointed out to them, most trade officials, whether they are in Washington, New Delhi or Jakarta, say that their current protectionist moves are politically necessary and designed to do only “temporary” limited economic harm to global trade flows. The bad old days of 1930s-style rampant global protectionism, they contend, will never come back. But even if that turns out to be true, what’s going on now is very dangerous. In his January report to WTO members, Mr. Lamy cited a recent study that pointed to what would happen if all countries increased their applied tariffs to their highest legally permitted rates. If that happened, the report observed, “the average global rate of duty would double and the value of global trade would be cut by about 8%” That ought to frighten everyone.

O diretor-geral da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC), Pascal Lamy, disse que está pronto a ajudar a encontrar uma solução no confronto dos genéricos entre Brasil e Índia, de um lado, e União Europeia (UE) de outro.

O Brasil e a Índia acusam a UE de violar as flexibilidade sobre patentes previstas para os países de desenvolvimento, com a retenção de cargas de remédios da Índia para o Brasil e, sabe-se agora, também para México, Peru, Equador, Colômbia e Nigéria.

Para o Brasil isso significa um endurecimento dos países ricos na questão de patentes, que pode anular tudo o que foi negociado em termos de flexibilidade para os países em desenvolvimento.

Os genéricos retidos na Holanda não têm patentes nem na Índia nem nos países importadores.

Mas a Holanda bloqueou as cargas alegando que empresas tinham a patente no país, por onde a carga apenas transitava.

A UE alegou que estava investigando se os remédios eram falsificados ou não e que os países “em desenvolvimento” deveriam agradecer a ação por salvar vidas humanas.

Para os países “em desenvolvimento”, a UE tenta minar as flexibilidades e sinaliza um movimento para aumentar exigências na área de propriedade intelectual, através de ações na Organização Mundial da Saúde, Organização Mundial de Aduanas e em outras entidades. Consideram que a ação na Holanda pode resultar em alta de preços de remédios que necessitam.

Dezesseis ONGs reuniram a imprensa internacional na sede das Nações Unidas, em Genebra, também para protestar contra a UE e enviaram cartas a várias organizações internacionais.

A informação é do Valor Econômico

Pascal Lamy, WTO head, was in NZ this week. Adam thought it appropriate to re-visit some remarks M. Lamy made to the FT in February, especially given some of the asinine comments made in recent days by various local identities who should know better.

“Buy local” measures by governments will jeopardise export sector jobs and risk setting the world on a damaging downward spiral of beggar-thy-neighbour protectionism, the head of the World Trade Organisation has warned.

He then commented:-

“If you start killing imports, you will kill exports,” Mr Lamy said. And since a high proportion of global output depended on international supply chains, shrinking trade flows would have a huge multiplier impact on world production and jobs

NZ as a nation heavily dependent on free and open world markets has a vested interest in ensuring they stay open. Consequently, we need to ensure that we practice what we preach.

Irna Gustia – detikFinance
Sabtu, 31/01/2009 17:41 WIB

http://www.detikfinance.com/read/2009/01/31/174151/1077470/4/forum-ekonomi-davos-yang-kelam

Davos, Swiss – Forum ekonomi dunia atau World Economic Forum sudah berlangsung sejak 28 Januari lalu di Davos, Swiss. Namun hingga satu hari menjelang penutupan, forum ekonomi dunia ini tak terdengar keras gaungnya.

BBCNews menulis, suramnya ekonomi dunia saat ini yang dilanda krisis finansial global membuat WEF tidak lagi menjadi sorotan pelaku pasar. Padahal biasanya pelaku ekonomi dunia datang jauh-jauh untuk mengikuti forum ini untuk membicarakan merger, akuisisi atau lompatan-lompatan bisnis lainnya.

WEF yang bertema ‘Shaping the Post-Crisis World’ diikuti hampir 2.000 pimpinan bisnis dan politik dan berlangsung sejak 28 Januari – 1 Februari 2009.

Beberapa pemimpin dunia sudah berbicara seperti Perdana Menteri China Wen Jiabao, Perdana Menteri Rusia Vladimir Putin, pemimpin WTO Pascal Lamy. Pembicaraannya masih seputar penanganan krisis finansial.

BBCNews menulis hingga hari kedua, pembicaraan masih seputar itu lagi-itu lagi dan kebanyakan yang hadir di Davos pun sebenarnya merasa tidak enak karena sudah berkomitmen hadir.

Pemimpin bisnis di Wall Street malah banyak yang tidak hadir dan memilih membereskan masalah di kantornya masing-masing. Tapi masih terlihat Bill Gates pemilik Microsoft yang ikut menjadi pembicara.

Sedangkan eksekutif Airbus Tom Enders mengatakan perseroan tidak memerlukan bailout dan optismitis masih bisa bertahan di era krisis ini. Sedangkan pesaingnya Boeing telah mengumumkan untuk mem-PHK 5.000 karyawannya.

Forum Davos baru ramai setelah Perdana Menteri (PM) Turki Recep Tayyip Erdogan marah-marah karena pidato yang disampaikan Presiden Israel Shimon Peres.

Dalam pidatonya, Peres bersikeras bahwa Israel terpaksa melancarkan serangan ofensif terhadap Hamas dikarenakan ribuan roket dan mortir yang ditembakkan Hamas ke Israel. Erdogan meninggalkan forum karena tidak merasa diberi kesempatan berbicara oleh moderator.

Sementara pada Sabtu ini, (31/1/2009) Perdana Menteri Jermal Angela Merkel mengusulkan dibentuknya dewan ekonomi di PBB seperti halnya dewan keamanan yang ada di PBB.

Dalam pidatonya Merkel mengatakan masalah-masalah ekonomi saat ini perlu dimasukkan dalam suatu piagam untuk penanganannya.

WEF yang didirikan oleh Klaus Schwab masih belum menutup kesimpulan namun diduga tidak akan ada suatu yang mengejutkan dari hasil pertemuan ini selain pengulangan yang sudah dibahas dalam forum-forum sebelumnya di tahun 2008.

Para pemimpin bisnis dan pemerintah kini lebih sibuk mengurusi dapurnya masing-masing untuk menjaga agar tidak terseret krisis yang berkepanjangan. Sampai-sampai Presiden AS Barack Obama memilih menyelesaikan paket stimulus ekonominya ketimbang menghadiri forum Davos. (ir/ir)

Hiljutisel konverentsil Pariisis nentis Maailma Kaubandusorganistasiooni direktor ja endine Euroopa Komisjoni kaubandusvolinik Pascal Lamy, et kapitalism on ebaõiglane süsteem, aga parema puudumisel tuleb seda parandada ja tõhustada.

Pascal Lamy on prantsuse sotsialist ja hinnatud asjatundja maailma majandusringkondades. Tema sõnad peegeldavad teiste tuntud ökonomistide arvamusi, kes soovitavad valitsustel võidelda kriisi mõjude vastu abiprogrammidega.

Teatud määral on loogiline, et just sotsiaaldemokraat sellist sõnumit edastab. Majanduspoliitika, mis parandab turufundamentalismi, piirab ahnust ja liigkasuvõtmist ning soosib pere- ja väikeettevõtete toetamist, samas pakkudes tugevaid sotsiaalseid garantiisid töövõtjatele, on siiski omane pigem sotsiaaldemokraatidele kui konservatiividele ja liberaalidele.

 Varasemas blogisissekandes kommenteerisin Mart Laari algatatud debatti “nähtavast käest.” IRL juht selgitas küll oma nägemust sellest, millises ulatuses riik peaks kriisi puhul tegutsema. Kahjuks jäi küll mulje, et “nähtav käsi” millest Laar räägib on suurema tegevuseta süles. Nägemus “nähtavast käest” mis vastanduks turuliberaalide “nähtamatule käele,” võiks siiski olla toimekam.  Ehk on kolleegid paremerakondadest valmis oma arusaamu majanduskriisi mõjul muutma?

P. Lamy esitas ülal toodud mõtted jaanuaris toimunud konverentsil pealkirjaga “Uus maailm, uus kapitalism”. Konverentsil osalesid teiste seas ka Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy ja Tony Blair, kelle mõtteavaldadused paistsid peegeldavat ühte – vanade reeglite järgi enam mängida ei saa. Parandatud reeglitega kapitalism on see, mis meid praegusest kriisist välja toob. See tähendab aktiivset tegutsemist valitsuse ja riigi poolt. Kui valitsus on riigi kriisist välja juhtinud, siis võib edasi arutada, kas tugev riik on vajalik või mitte. Seda, et valitsus juhiks riigi kriisist välja, ootavadki riigi kodanikud. Mitte soovitust rasked ajad kuidagi üle elada või parastamist, et kes käskis nii palju laenu võtta.

Não vivemos uma crise econômica e sim uma crise de pensamento! O socialismo faliu, o capitalismo vive suas horas derradeiras!

O final da era capitalista foi decretado pelo Diretor Geral da Organização Mundial do Comércio! Em um ato de sinceridade o Francês Pascal Lamy (Maestro do Capitalismo) disse:

“Não é porque até agora não encontramos outro sistema que não podemos continuar tentando, pois o capitalismo é muito injusto.”

Observe, as novas profissões ecologista, Chef, Desiner de interiores, Diretor digital. Antigamente você poderia ser apenas Engenheiro, Médico ou Advogado!

Nossa economia tornou-se a “Economia Criativa” a “Economia da informalidade”

Nossa economia, não precisará tantos de engravatados! Precisará de criatividade!

Os empregos novos não estão nas multinacionais e sim naquela boutique digital e seus e-criativos!

The European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has called for a ‘human rescue’ package to help poor countries.

Speaking at the opening of a high-level UN conference on aid, Mr Barroso said it would be ‘obscene’ to neglect the human cost of the global slowdown.

The UN Conference on Financing for Development is meeting in Doha, Qatar to track progress on development aid.

There are fears that rich countries will cut back on development aid as a result of the looming recession.

Mr Barroso said that climate change, energy security and trade would add to the potential problems facing poor countries as result of the financial crisis.

The World Bank has said that developing countries are facing a ‘perfect storm’, with the convergence of slowing growth, a withdrawal of private capital, and higher interest rates on their debt.

The Bank says that growth in developing countries will fall by two percentage points to 4.5% next year, as the volume of global trade contracts for the first time since 1982.

But aid agencies have criticised the fact that neither the head of the World Bank or the IMF, or many other world leaders from rich countries, have come to the talks.

“The fact that so few world leaders have chosen to travel to Doha is a real cause for concern,” said Ariane Arpa of Oxfam.

Promises, promises

Six years ago, rich countries pledged to double their aid efforts to ensure that the poor countries reach their millennium development goals of halving poverty by 2015.

But UN figures show that the developed countries have only committed $20bn of the $50bn they promised at the G8 summit in 2005, leaving them far short of the $130bn that will be needed if the millennium development goals are to be met.

World Bank president Robert Zoellick said he would accelerate the disbursement of $42bn it has available to support low-income (IDA) countries over the next three years.

But Christian Aid and ActionAid are concerned that the present financial crisis will be used by rich countries as an excuse to renege on aid commitments.

The mood of the meeting is likely to be in sharp contrast to the first Financing for Development summit in Monterrey, Mexico, in 2002, when President George W Bush unexpectedly promised to double US development aid.

Developing countries are also looking to play a bigger role in discussions designed to restructure the world financial system.

The G20, which met in Washington earlier in November, includes some major emerging market countries, but does not represent the very poorest nations.

Some developing countries and aid agencies would also like the meeting to tackle the issues of tax evasion by multinationals and capital flight.

Meanwhile, discussions will be taking place in Geneva about plans to re-launch the world trade talks, which stalled in the summer because of a dispute over farming tariff protection for poor countries.

WTO boss Pascal Lamy has said it is essential that world leaders show their commitment to developing country growth through aid and trade.

Aaj News l Aaj l Aaj TV l AajTV