WTO & AFRICA: HERE COMES THE INEVTIABLE WAILING

[MOON Ki]

• Tweet

.

[MOON Ki]

"Borrowed" from Jukwaa: http://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/9442/open-notes-mohamed-africa-rising?page=1&scrollTo=133967

This was bound to end in tears for Africa, and here they come:

http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Editorial/World-Trade-meeting-merely-reinforced-biases/-/440804/3002168/-/11e0981z/-/index.html

Collectively, the meeting has not achieved much.

The 10th Ministerial Conference, otherwise known as MC10, was billed to signal a trade breakthrough for developing nations, given that it was strategically hosted in Nairobi, but the deliberations have barely pointed in that direction.

  The unhappy editorial informs us that:

One of the key items on the agenda was the signing of the trade facilitation agreement that would allow Africa and other developing nations to access markets in Europe and the United States.

On paper, this would be a boost to the developing world, but, in reality, it is not. Most exports from Africa are largely agricultural and raw.
They hardly fetch good prices on the international market

It is hoped that the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) will be ratified in Nairobi.
This is a special agreement for Africa, particularly considering the low intra-Africa trade volumes.  To improve their profiles at the multi-lateral level, African countries must increase their trade with one another, and one of the ways to do so is to have the TFA ratified in Nairobi.

A herculean task this might be, but it would revolutionise intra-Africa trade as it addresses the perennial impediments to trade, including border measures, customs procedures, non-tariff measures, simplification of trade procedures and documentation, physical infrastructure, and security concerns.

http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Africa-should-define-its-world-trade-agenda/-/440808/3000364/-/kdw8e2/-/index.html

The entire article is confused on several points---not in the above quoted part--that we need not get into.   As far as the quoted part goes, one question that immediately comes to mind is this: if intra-Africa trade

Myanmar, Norway, Viet Nam, Brunei, Zambia, Ukraine,  Hong Kong China, Singapore, the United States, Mauritius, Malaysia, Japan, Australia, Botswana, Trinidad and Tobago, the Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, NigerKenya.

We may now review (i) and (ii) for an idea of who will be wailing about "the rich are cutting us out!".   

Turning to (1) above: head against the wall

http://morungexpress.com/india-hardens-stance-in-wto-objects-to-agri-draft/

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/govt-works-to-finetune-farm-subsidy-as-per-wto/diplomatese.):
 

Meanwhile, those Members have stated clearly their expectation that this mind-boggling imbalance, which would clearly fall short of any true effort to reform trade-distorting agricultural subsidies, should be preserved.  Using the lexicon of the WTO, we view that as blood for water, or blood for air, which is simply not an outcome that we could endorse.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/speechestranscripts/2015/february/statement-michael-punke-us

That seems quite rough, even in diplomatese10 years agoUSA, EU SOFTEN STANCE ON AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIEShttp://www.nation.co.ke/business/US--EU-support-the-scrapping-of-farm-subsidies-in-rich-countries/-/996/2999380/-/ai0e3iz/-/index.html

The Unhappy Editorial also tells us that:

Daily Nation leading (or misleading):

Africa at risk as rich nations plot new deal!

http://www.nation.co.ke/news/Africa-at-risk-as-rich-nations-plot-new-deal/-/1056/3001052/-/hnriq0/-/index.html