India, China: top trade powers, different styles
Geneva (AFP) July 31, 2008Top negotiators from India and China displayed sharply different operating styles at just-ended WTO trade talks here: Indian Trade Minister Kamal Nath happily obliged reporters with corridor comment while Chinese counterpart Chen Deming steered well clear of the limelight.
But both were blamed in some circles for Tuesday's breakdown in a nine-day marathon effort to forge a deal to free up world commerce.
From their handling of the media to their behaviour at the negotiating table, they showed that while they both represent major emerging Asian powerhouses, the similarities stopped there.
Nath may not have deliberately courted publicity but he was certainly ready to accomodate a media mob waiting around for a quote or two on his tough stance.
Arriving at the WTO, he held a packed news conference and went on to make himself available to reporters throughout the week in the lobby and cafeteria of the World Trade Organization's palatial headquarters beside Lake Geneva.
"I came here to negotiate commerce. I did not come here to negotiate the livelihoods and security of my people," was his mantra, as he dug in his heels on special import tariffs to protect poor farmers, which proved to be the deal-breaker.
The Chinese delegation cut a completely different style.
Chen shied away from all publicity, to a point that many journalists did not recognise him when they passed him in the corridors.
He would emerge from meetings and slip right by the waiting cameras.
On a rare occasion when he was spotted, he said only: "This is not the right time to do interviews."
Diplomats said India's unmovable stance was grounded in Washington's trade deficit with New Delhi -- a miniscule 697 million dollars against a US deficit with China of more than 21 billion.
China counts the United States among its major customers.
"China had a lot to gain from the round. It was mostly very constructive," said an Asian delegate. "It has been very quiet in the discussions, but don't think they haven't been listening. It's their tactic, they speak up when they need to."
That was evident when the United States took delegates attending a 153-member state meeting by surprise on Monday, openly accusing India and China of having jeopardised the talks.
"All their invocations of development during the past years ring hollow when these major players threaten the development benefits already on the table that are absolutely vital to the vast majority of the membership," said the US deputy head at the Geneva mission to the WTO, David Shark.
Diplomats noted China's sharp rebuttal, in which it criticised Washington for claiming to have offered cuts in its generous subsidies to cotton farmers, when the figures gave a different picture. "They showed that they knew exactly what they were talking about. They used facts to turn the tables on the US," said an African diplomat.
Smarting from the public criticism, China also said US actions were "creating disharmony," delegates who attended the meetings told to AFP.
At Wednesday's meeting with delegates from all 153 states, China's Li Enheng, the deputy permanent representative of its mission here, delivered a statement reiterating the criticism.
"The major developed members need to (engage) in ... genuine leadership in the negotiations, rather than in any unhelpful activities with a view to shifting responsibilities onto others," Li said.
related reportChina says collapse of WTO talks a 'tragic failure'China called the collapse of World Trade Organisation talks a "tragic failure" and expressed disappointment Wednesday over the inability of those involved to reach a consensus.
"This is a tragic failure," Commerce Minister Chen Deming said in a statement posted on his ministry's website.
China, like other countries, was "very disappointed", he said.
"Particularly in the face of a world economic downturn, serious inflation and imminent financial risks, the failure will have a major impact on the fragile multilateral trading system," he said.
The marathon negotiations for a global trade pact collapsed on Tuesday after ministers quit emotional talks without a deal due to a deadlock between India and the United States over subsidy levels and import tariffs.
Ministers had struggled for more than a week to reach consensus for a new deal under the WTO's Doha Round, which has repeatedly foundered since its launch seven years ago.
Chen said China had made major compromises during the negotiations.
"I also hope that all WTO members could reflect upon the failure and learn a lesson from it so that the quality and efficiency of future negotiations could be improved," he said.
Chen said that the talks had broken down because of the "inability of two countries to bridge the gap between their positions" on the crucial issue of the special safeguard mechanism (SSM) to protect poor farmers.
He did not specify which countries.
But the United States and India were sharply divided over the SSM, which would have imposed a special tariff on certain agricultural goods in the event of an import surge or price fall.
With both sides refusing to give way, acrimony peaked on Monday with the United States publicly accusing India and China of holding up progress.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
India, China: top trade powers, different styles
India, China: top trade powers, different styles
Geneva (AFP) July 31, 2008Top negotiators from India and China displayed sharply different operating styles at just-ended WTO trade talks here: Indian Trade Minister Kamal Nath happily obliged reporters with corridor comment while Chinese counterpart Chen Deming steered well clear of the limelight.
But both were blamed in some circles for Tuesday's breakdown in a nine-day marathon effort to forge a deal to free up world commerce.
From their handling of the media to their behaviour at the negotiating table, they showed that while they both represent major emerging Asian powerhouses, the similarities stopped there.
Nath may not have deliberately courted publicity but he was certainly ready to accomodate a media mob waiting around for a quote or two on his tough stance.
Arriving at the WTO, he held a packed news conference and went on to make himself available to reporters throughout the week in the lobby and cafeteria of the World Trade Organization's palatial headquarters beside Lake Geneva.
"I came here to negotiate commerce. I did not come here to negotiate the livelihoods and security of my people," was his mantra, as he dug in his heels on special import tariffs to protect poor farmers, which proved to be the deal-breaker.
The Chinese delegation cut a completely different style.
Chen shied away from all publicity, to a point that many journalists did not recognise him when they passed him in the corridors.
He would emerge from meetings and slip right by the waiting cameras.
On a rare occasion when he was spotted, he said only: "This is not the right time to do interviews."
Diplomats said India's unmovable stance was grounded in Washington's trade deficit with New Delhi -- a miniscule 697 million dollars against a US deficit with China of more than 21 billion.
China counts the United States among its major customers.
"China had a lot to gain from the round. It was mostly very constructive," said an Asian delegate. "It has been very quiet in the discussions, but don't think they haven't been listening. It's their tactic, they speak up when they need to."
That was evident when the United States took delegates attending a 153-member state meeting by surprise on Monday, openly accusing India and China of having jeopardised the talks.
"All their invocations of development during the past years ring hollow when these major players threaten the development benefits already on the table that are absolutely vital to the vast majority of the membership," said the US deputy head at the Geneva mission to the WTO, David Shark.
Diplomats noted China's sharp rebuttal, in which it criticised Washington for claiming to have offered cuts in its generous subsidies to cotton farmers, when the figures gave a different picture. "They showed that they knew exactly what they were talking about. They used facts to turn the tables on the US," said an African diplomat.
Smarting from the public criticism, China also said US actions were "creating disharmony," delegates who attended the meetings told to AFP.
At Wednesday's meeting with delegates from all 153 states, China's Li Enheng, the deputy permanent representative of its mission here, delivered a statement reiterating the criticism.
"The major developed members need to (engage) in ... genuine leadership in the negotiations, rather than in any unhelpful activities with a view to shifting responsibilities onto others," Li said.
related reportChina says collapse of WTO talks a 'tragic failure'China called the collapse of World Trade Organisation talks a "tragic failure" and expressed disappointment Wednesday over the inability of those involved to reach a consensus.
"This is a tragic failure," Commerce Minister Chen Deming said in a statement posted on his ministry's website.
China, like other countries, was "very disappointed", he said.
"Particularly in the face of a world economic downturn, serious inflation and imminent financial risks, the failure will have a major impact on the fragile multilateral trading system," he said.
The marathon negotiations for a global trade pact collapsed on Tuesday after ministers quit emotional talks without a deal due to a deadlock between India and the United States over subsidy levels and import tariffs.
Ministers had struggled for more than a week to reach consensus for a new deal under the WTO's Doha Round, which has repeatedly foundered since its launch seven years ago.
Chen said China had made major compromises during the negotiations.
"I also hope that all WTO members could reflect upon the failure and learn a lesson from it so that the quality and efficiency of future negotiations could be improved," he said.
Chen said that the talks had broken down because of the "inability of two countries to bridge the gap between their positions" on the crucial issue of the special safeguard mechanism (SSM) to protect poor farmers.
He did not specify which countries.
But the United States and India were sharply divided over the SSM, which would have imposed a special tariff on certain agricultural goods in the event of an import surge or price fall.
With both sides refusing to give way, acrimony peaked on Monday with the United States publicly accusing India and China of holding up progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment