Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (4057)	8/12/2003 11:50:09 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

U.S., EU inch closer to farm trade pact By Jeffrey Sparshott THE WASHINGTON TIMES The United States and European Union are inching closer to compromise on agricultural talks at the World Trade Organization, a vital step for a new global-trade agreement. The multi-year round of negotiations is meant to open markets and spur development in poor countries, but it has missed every major deadline without any solutions. The United States and the 15-nation European Union, which jointly control about 40 percent of world trade, are key players in the global agreement but have been especially divided on farm talks, the centerpiece of the negotiations. At an informal gathering earlier this month in Montreal and yesterday in Geneva, the two sides appeared to begin outlining a possible compromise. "For the first time since the agriculture talks began, there were signs that genuine negotiations have started," said an official familiar with yesterday's meeting, who asked not to be identified. Movement toward a compromise is a cause for optimism, but U.S. and EU officials remained cautious. "We're trying to find a common [position], though we don't know if we are able to. We are optimistic but realistic," said Beate Gminder, an EU spokeswoman based in Brussels. All 146 of the WTO's members must agree on trade rules for farm goods, but any agreement between the United States and European Union would help move the talks forward. "I think we are the lead countries in terms of trade. If we can move, it will have an impact on others," Ms. Gminder said. The biggest test yet will come during a Sept. 10-14 meeting in Cancun, Mexico, where participants are supposed to agree on a framework for negotiations. The framework would set the stage for a final pact by January 2005. The United States and European Union said that as soon as this week they could circulate a joint paper to help guide agricultural negotiations. At issue are tariffs that keep products out of a market, export subsidies that help farmers sell products more cheaply in foreign markets, and domestic supports that help farmers make a living but can effectively drive down international prices. The United States' and European Union's initial proposals were far apart. The United States asked for across-the-board cuts on the highest tariffs, and a sharp reduction in subsidies, while Europe favored cuts that targeted developing countries. The U.S. formula would have benefited U.S. producers because American tariffs are already lower than the world and European averages. U.S. tariffs on agricultural goods average about 12 percent, while EU tariffs average 30 percent, according to an Agriculture Department analysis. The same holds true for formulas to cut subsidies. U.S. support runs at about 18 percent of farm receipts, while in the European Union it is 36 percent, according to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development study. Negotiators meet again tomorrow in Geneva and hope to reach some form of accord before the two-week session wraps up. Also in Geneva, U.S. officials yesterday appealed a WTO ruling that said tariffs on steel imports break global trade rules. President Bush in March 2002 raised duties as high as 30 percent on imported steel to protect ailing U.S. steelmakers and give the industry a chance to consolidate. Other steel-producing nations quickly protested. Last month the WTO said the duties, scheduled to run for three years, are illegal. The appeal process delays a final ruling by about three months. The Bush administration separately is evaluating the tariffs and will make its own determination on whether to continue them past the year-and-a-half mark. Steelmakers favor keeping them, but companies that use steel to produce goods complain that the tariffs have raised prices and cost jobs.