Zambia, Zim and Malawi oppose stiffer legislation on tobacco
By Gift Chanda
Fri 01 Nov. 2013, 14:00 CAT
SOUTHERN African countries have opposed stiffer tobacco legislation to compel them to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products.
Francois van der Merwe, chief executive officer of the Tobacco Institute of Southern Africa (TISA), said the countries, including Zambia, are concerned at the growing trend to introduce cigarette packaging regulations that encroach on existing legal trademarks.
Ukraine and Honduras are reviving a dispute at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) challenging Australian laws that introduced the so-called "plain packaging" requirements regarding the appearance and packaging of tobacco products.
Inclusive of significant trademark restrictions, the legislation requires tobacco products to be sold in standardised, olive-green packs with large graphic health warnings on both sides of the pack.
But van der Merwe said, "Any measure that goes beyond what is necessary to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco by limiting trademarks of legal products, runs the risk of achieving many unintended consequences for years to come".
"Extreme regulations, such as standardised packs, as in Australia will make it difficult to differentiate between tobacco products and will make counterfeiting easier, leading to a further rise in illicit trade," he said.
He explained that illicit trade in tobacco products was already of considerable proportion in the Southern African region, affecting all stakeholders throughout the tobacco value chain.
"Any increase in illicit trade due to extreme regulation which is not based on evidence and science, and on which full consultation has not taken place, will have disastrous negative consequences for countries in the region," said van der Merwe.
"SADC members Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi have registered their concerns around the impact of extreme tobacco packaging legislation, with all three having notified the WTO of their interest in becoming third parties to the Ukraine dispute on tobacco plain packaging. This is on the basis of the
contribution of tobacco to their economies, a point on which they refuse to be mute participants and powerless negotiators in international forums where the outcome impacts their economies."
Plain packaging was introduced in Australia in December last year, and there has been manoeuvres by anti-smoking pressure groups to have African countries introduce the law after the big tobacco companies in Australia lost a lawsuit challenging the regulation.
Tobacco is grown in six out of 15 member states of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), including Zambia, and in all of the five tobacco growing member states, the crop is a key export earner with a significant contribution of between three to 10 per cent to the GDP of those countries.
Labels: TISA, TOBACCO, WTO
Read more...
Zambia, Zim and Malawi oppose stiffer legislation on tobacco
By Gift Chanda
Fri 01 Nov. 2013, 14:00 CAT
SOUTHERN African countries have opposed stiffer tobacco legislation to compel them to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products.
Francois van der Merwe, chief executive officer of the Tobacco Institute of Southern Africa (TISA), said the countries, including Zambia, are concerned at the growing trend to introduce cigarette packaging regulations that encroach on existing legal trademarks.
Ukraine and Honduras are reviving a dispute at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) challenging Australian laws that introduced the so-called "plain packaging" requirements regarding the appearance and packaging of tobacco products.
Inclusive of significant trademark restrictions, the legislation requires tobacco products to be sold in standardised, olive-green packs with large graphic health warnings on both sides of the pack.
But van der Merwe said, "Any measure that goes beyond what is necessary to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco by limiting trademarks of legal products, runs the risk of achieving many unintended consequences for years to come".
"Extreme regulations, such as standardised packs, as in Australia will make it difficult to differentiate between tobacco products and will make counterfeiting easier, leading to a further rise in illicit trade," he said.
He explained that illicit trade in tobacco products was already of considerable proportion in the Southern African region, affecting all stakeholders throughout the tobacco value chain.
"Any increase in illicit trade due to extreme regulation which is not based on evidence and science, and on which full consultation has not taken place, will have disastrous negative consequences for countries in the region," said van der Merwe.
"SADC members Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi have registered their concerns around the impact of extreme tobacco packaging legislation, with all three having notified the WTO of their interest in becoming third parties to the Ukraine dispute on tobacco plain packaging. This is on the basis of the
contribution of tobacco to their economies, a point on which they refuse to be mute participants and powerless negotiators in international forums where the outcome impacts their economies."
Plain packaging was introduced in Australia in December last year, and there has been manoeuvres by anti-smoking pressure groups to have African countries introduce the law after the big tobacco companies in Australia lost a lawsuit challenging the regulation.
Tobacco is grown in six out of 15 member states of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), including Zambia, and in all of the five tobacco growing member states, the crop is a key export earner with a significant contribution of between three to 10 per cent to the GDP of those countries.
Labels: TISA, TOBACCO, WTO
Read more...
Masebo happy with WTO preps
August 23, 2012 | Filed under: Local News | Posted by: web editor
By CHARLES CHISALA
MINISTER of Tourism and Arts Sylvia Masebo says she is happy with the progress made so far in preparations for the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) general assembly to be co-hosted by Zambia and Zimbabwe next year.
Ms Masebo said on Tuesday evening after getting updates from the various players that she is confident that the country is up to date in terms of preparations for the event.
She was satisfied with the briefings from the Livingstone City Council (LCC), the Southern Water and Sewerage Company (SWASCO) and other public institutions and members of the private sector at Wasawange Lodge and Tours.
“I am very impressed with what I have heard. I am confident that when we meet again after two weeks, more progress will be reported. From here it’s action, action, action. It’s implementation, implementation, implementation. There is no time,” she said.
LCC director of engineering services Ben Chiyesu reported that out of the 34 roads that have been identified for rehabilitation or construction, the council has prioritised seven.
“After the last consultative meeting, we came up with a list of 34 roads. But because of budget constraints, we had to prioritise these roads and identified seven on which the K33 billion the National Roads Fund Agency has made available, will be spent,” Mr Chiyesu said.
And Town Clerk Vivian Chikoti said the council has already come up with some infrastructure development projects to be implemented around the city, in readiness for the WTO general assembly.
“We have done our homework. Once we are through with these projects, Livingstone will be a showpiece in this region,” she said.
Earlier, Minister of Chiefs and Traditional Affairs Nkandu Luo said her ministry has already devised a strategy to involve chiefdoms to provide the products Ms Masebo’s ministry will need to market Zambia’s tourism.
Ms Masebo left for Victoria Falls Town in Zimbabwe yesterday where she is expected to attend a Joint Ministerial Committee meeting on the WTO general assembly today.
Labels: SYLVIA MASEBO, WTO
Read more...
Treacherous Treaties: American Imperialism, World Government and the Bilderbergers
by Prof. John Kozy
Global Research, April 2, 2012
"steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world" - George Washington, 1796Is American imperialism a Bilderberger plot? Are the American bankers, diplomats, and members of the Council on Foreign Relations all traitors, having turned America into merely an instrument to carry out their Bilderberger maniacal aims? Does America as a sovereign nation even exist anymore?
Consider the possibility that the Bilderbergers have already bought off the governments of Western Europe, North America, and the remnants of the British Empire that still cling to the Queen's skirts. If that be true, the only remaining obstacles to a Bilderberger success are the BRICS and the Moslem world.
The WTO and promises of free trade and pie in the sky prosperity can be used to subvert the BRICS which leaves the Moslem countries as the last bulwark in defense of free, independent, and sovereign nations. When one realizes just how ironic that is, the realization of just how far the Bilderbergers have already come in advancing their agenda really strikes home.
Sometime during the First World War, the well-meaning but naïve American president, Woodrow Wilson, came up with the idea that every ethnic minority in Eastern Europe was entitled to its own nation, a nation for every ethnicity, and he persuaded the victorious powers to create such nations while writing the peace treaties that ended the war. It was a bad idea.
Before the war, central and Eastern Europe was dominated by Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Russia. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was comprised of more than a dozen ethnic groups. There were Germans (i.e., Austrians), Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians, Serbs, Croats, Slavs, Romanians, and more.
When the war ended, several treaties were imposed on the defeated nations, all of which had to give up territory to the victorious powers and a number of newly created nations (Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czechoslovakia). Several nations were enlarged (Denmark, Russia, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Italy). The Ottoman Empire was dismembered. Turkey lost most of its land in Europe and Arabia was made into a mandate ruled by the British and French, Syria and Lebanon went to France and Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine went to Britain. In the end, all of this up-carving was naught but a gigantic failure, the consequences of which we are still living with today.
The bug in the broth was obvious. People migrate. In the fifty-one years of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, peoples moved within it. All Poles did not stay in the area that became Poland; Serbs did not stay in Serbia; Croats did not stay in Croatia. When the empire was dismembered, peoples of all nationalities were everywhere. Putting them together again in homogenous groups was impossible. Additionally, some of those of German nationality ended up in France, Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia and who knows where else.
Realpolitik in Europe in the early twentieth century was characterized by a plethora of treaties. Bismarckian balance of power relationships ruled the day. Nations lined up with each other to oppose other groups of nations to balance another group's power. The idea was that if the groups were equally strong peace was assured. How wrong they were.
Even after the war these balance of power relationships continued. (In fact, they continue to this day.) So when Germany began to balk at the onerous conditions placed upon it by the Treaty of Paris, it wanted to retake the territory it had lost and reunite the German peoples scattered throughout Eastern Europe. The peace lasted a mere twenty-nine years! Germany easily took back the territory that had been ceded to France. The Austrians, being a Germanic people, willingly allowed Austria to be annexed. Then the Germans went for the Germans in the territory that had been ceded to Czechoslovakia. War was on the horizon because England and France objected to all of this German expansion, but they ultimately acquiesced, drawing a line on any German expansion into Poland by committing their countries to go to war with Germany if Poland were invaded. In essence, they wrote a treaty, believing that this treaty would work to balance their power with Germany's and thus prevent war. But it was a sham.
Germany, knowing that neither England nor France were prepared to go to war, invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 after signing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with Russia (the USSR) to keep it from joining England and France. As a result, the English and French made some minor forays into Germany that were easily repulsed, and Germany easily overran Poland. After that, the English were driven from the continent and the French surrendered.
Almost everyone knows this story, so why am I retelling it. Well the story is old news and not important, but no one has analyzed the role of the treaties involved in it.
What effect did the English and French treaty to come to the aid of Poland have? It didn't prevent the war. Nor did it help Poland which was overrun at least twice and utterly destroyed. The English and French never liberated Poland. The treaty didn't extinguish Germany's desire to expand its territory, for shortly after France surrendered, Germans invaded Russia. What did this treaty do? It merely expanded the war.
For the purposes of this paper, it doesn't matter that that expansion may have been a good thing in the long run. What is most important is the recognition that when the treaty was invoked, it diminished the sovereignties of both England and France.
A nation is sovereign when it alone is responsible for its behavior. A sovereign nation can go to war or not. A sovereign nation makes its own decisions. But neither the British nor the French made the decision to go to war. The decision was made in Berlin. The German decision to invade Poland was also a decision to bring England and France into the war. After agreeing to come to Poland's aid, the British and French no longer had any say in the matter. It was all up to Germany.
Germany and Italy were in a similar position. They had a mutual assistance treaty with Japan. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the attack brought Germany and Italy into a war with the United States, a war which neither Germany nor Italy wanted at the time. So the treaty with Japan reduced Italian and German sovereignties. The decision to bring them into war with the United States was not made in Berlin or Rome; it was made in Tokyo. That decision was completely up to the Japanese. The Germans and Italians had nothing to do with it.
So the interesting question is, do all treaties reduce the sovereignties of the nations that enter into them? I am certain the answer is yes. Treaties which are entered into in hopes of preventing wars ultimately expand them and nations find themselves fighting wars they never conceived of because an insignificant member of a treaty can somehow start a war that then extends to all of the treaty's signatories.
In fact, World War I started in exactly that way. The war which killed more than 15 million and wounded more than 20 million was started by the assassination on June 28, 1914 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, by a Yugoslav nationalist. Because of it, Austria went to war with Serbia. Alliances formed over previous decades, brought the major powers into the war within weeks. How many of these nations would have gone to war over that assassination had the treaties not existed? No one will ever know!
None of the nations except Austria had a hand in deciding to go to war. The decision for every nation involved, except perhaps the United States, was made in Vienna. By signing these treaties, each of these nations gave up their sovereignties. They were no longer masters of their own fates.
Since the end of World War II, the United States has insanely fostered treaty making. There are NATO, SEATO, and only Washington knows what else. Any puny nation that is part of any of these treaties can draw not only the United States but all of the other signatories in to a colossal conflagration. Americans like to pretend that they control these treaty-groups. America refers to itself as a "first among equals." But that expression is an oxymoron. If there is a first, the rest are not equals, and if all are equal, there is no first! How would Americans react if something happened in Bangladesh that drew the United States into a worldwide war? Realpolitik is a receipe for disaster. Why have we not paid attention to the advice of George Washington?
Two European immigrants to America, both Bilderbergers, who speak with heavy European accents and harbor Bismarckian complexes bear much responsibility for this situation, (Bismarck's balance of power policies brought peace to Germany for a mere 43 years) but they are not alone.
However balance of power treaties are not the only culprits. Trade agreements are just as bad. Look at what the Maastricht Treaty which established the European Union has done to Greece and threatens to do to other European countries. Today's Quisling Greek government is now little more than a tool of Europe's more prosperous states. When Greece's former socialist Prime Minister George Papandreou proposed a popular referendum on the Greek sovereign debt bailout, the European Union scotched it. Now Greece no longer has the power to call an election that the Union objects to. Greece has even lost its democracy.
But the effect of trade agreements is far more extensive than the EU.
". . . big financial players have another potential weapon in their battle against safety and soundness. This one is more hidden from view and comes from, of all places, the World Trade Organization in Geneva.
Back in the 1990s, when many in Washington — and virtually everyone on Wall Street — embraced the deregulation that helped lead to the recent crisis, a vast majority of W.T.O. nations made varying commitments to what's called the financial services agreement, which loosens rules governing banks and other such institutions.
Many countries, for instance, said they would not restrict the number of financial services companies in their territories. Many also pledged not to cap the total value of assets or transactions conducted by such companies. These pledges also appear to raise trouble for any country that tries to ban risky financial instruments.
According to the W.T.O., 125 of its 153 member countries have made varying degrees of commitments to the financial services agreement. Now, these pledges could easily be used to undermine new rules intended to make financial systems safer."
So now, nations may not even have the power to regulate their financial institutions which, in fact, extends to their economies as a whole. The World Trade Organization rules all.
So how did that happen? Well, people have been trying to create a world government for a long time. To do that, nation states must be rendered effete. Consider what David Rockefeller said at a Bilderberg meeting in 1991:
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
Well given what the "intellectual elite and world bankers" did to the global economy in 2008, do you really want them to rule all? World government, in order to work, requires that ethnic and religious distinctions be expunged. But ethnic characteristics are often physical and the French and the Russians, after their revolutions, tried and failed to extinguish their peoples' religious beliefs. So how do you believe a new one world government would react to ethnic and religious uprisings world-wide? Would the entire world begin to look like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and countless parts of Africa? Is such a world surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries"? More importantly, is American imperialism a Bilderberger plot? Are the American bankers, diplomats, and members of the Council on Foreign Relations all traitors, having turned America into merely an instrument to carry out their maniacal aims? Does America as a sovereign nation even exist anymore? Remember what Jefferson says about banks: "banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies."
Consider the possibility that the Bilderbergers have already bought off the governments of Western Europe, North America, and the remnants of the British Empire that still cling to the Queen's skirts and are now using all of these nations as tools to bring about their goal of imposing a single bankers' government on its New World Order. izesIf that be true, the only remaining obstacles to a Bilderberger success are the BRICS and the Moslem world. The WTO and promises of free trade and pie in the sky prosperity can be used to subvert the BRICS which leaves the Moslem countries as the last bulwark in defense of free, independent, and sovereign nations. When one real just how ironic that is, the realization of just how far the Bilderbergers have already come in advancing their agenda really strikes home.
Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonssøn Quisling is long dead, but his soul has multiplied and now inhabits the bodies of greedy merchants and maniacal diplomats and politicians the world over. For the most part, these people hold respected places in society. Shouldn't they be vilified instead? What has any Rockefeller or Bilderberger done for you or anyone you know?
John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site's homepage.
Labels: SOVEREIGNTY, WTO
Read more...
President right on country's recovery
By: By Frank Banda
Posted: Saturday, July 10, 2010 6:21 am
WESTERN media and Euro-centric analysts went into a frenzy this week after President Mugabe gave a speech at a Zanu-PF Central Committee meeting on Thursday.
The President rightly said that Zimbabwe will recover "by her wits and resources" and the likes of the Movement for Democratic Change will have to stop wasting time on "useless initiatives". One such "useless initiative" is the belief that Zimbabweans will be saved by help from the West.
Eric Bloch -- a Eurocentric economist -- denounced the President's assertion claiming that said Zimbabwe cannot recover without Western aid, increased trade and foreign investment.
This is true, but Mr Bloch read the President out of context; as international analysts and their accompanying media often do, or choose to do.
They responded with the same level of ignorance when the president once said, "Zimbabwe is mine". The president's wit is often misconstrued by those people who have a different agenda on Zimbabwe.
The hatred of President Mugabe has made some people, who are considered experts in their field, sound like novices.
President Mugabe's speech was meant to show the world that Zimbabwe has sufficient resources to take itself out of its current problems, considering all other conditions are equal.
There are many ways of conveying this message and President Mugabe only used one -- and the anti-Mugabe lobby went amok.
Conditional aid, which in itself is meant to benefit the West, has no place in developing Zimbabwe.
How can countries that impose sanctions on a country be seen as concerned about the same country's development?
Mr Bloch should know, as an 'economist', that the current international trade regime is skewed against developing countries.
The debates at the World Trade Organisation -- on agriculture, services, sanitary and phytosanitary measures -- have been mired in conflict because they tend to favour the West.
Various discussions have broken down because of this and demonstrations against Western manipulation of the world trading regime have been seen everywhere -- in Doha and elsewhere.
For centuries, foreign investment (and divestment) has not benefitted the African continent in ways that are expected of a rich continent.
Politics has been a major impediment to Africa's development; and economists like Mr Bloch should not only look at conventional economics; but should consider various factors that affect development in Africa.
Aid is investment; and countries that give aid want a return on their investment. So far, they have been as greedy as to want everything from that investment.
This is why they oppose our own initiatives -- like the indigenisation and empowerment initiatives -- which eat into their profits.
The World Bank and International Monetary Fund are banks, period. They make money from lending. That is why they want Zimbabwe to repay its debt; so they can get a return on their investment. Any policy they will suggest for Zimbabwe is predicated on the need to realise profit from their investment.
If Zimbabwe is so poor, why do they not give the country a moratorium, or cancel the debt outright?
A new economic thinking is needed. The likes of Erich Bloc and Godfrey Kanyenze (and the Washington and London economists) have failed to come up with the right kind of ideas necessary for Africa.
Where Africa has taken the lead, they have stood in the way. Politics plays a key role, as pointed out above. There's no way Africa can listen to this neo-liberal reasoning (or nonsense) anymore. It hasn't benefited Africa up to now and it will never benefit Africa in future.
"Useless initiatives" indeed.
How can a country like Britain, with billions in debt, be expected to provide US$10 billion in aid to Zimbabwe?
The EU will keep you on your toes thinking much will come from them. There are countries in the region that are near collapse. They will provide for their embattled kith and kin in Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain (PIGS) before they think about Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC-T.
The president, as usual, has scored another ace. Zimbabwe (and Africa) will indeed recover "by her wits and resources".
_______________
*Frank Banda is a columnist for TalkZimbabwe.com
Labels: FRANK BANDA, IMF, MUGABE, NEOLIBERALISM, WTO
Read more...
World Trade negotiation not progressing well – Dr Fee
By Mutale Kapekele
Mon 14 June 2010, 12:20 CAT
WORLD trade negotiations are not going well despite calls that they should be concluded this year, European Union head of delegation in Zambia Dr Derik Fee has observed.
In an interview on Saturday, Dr Fee said it looked unlikely that the current round of negotiations would be completed this year.
The current round of negotiations started in 2005 but has failed to reach a conclusion owing to issues of concern raised by Low income Developing Countries (LDCs), a group that Zambia heads at the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The LDCs have argued that agricultural subsidies in developed countries have made those markets uncompetitive for exports from countries that did not offer subsidies to farmers.
Dr Fee said trade was the solution to speeding up Africa’s development and urged Zambia to sign the Economic Partnership Agreement if she was to benefit from world trade.
“Zambia and the Comoros have not yet signed the EPA (Economic Partnership Agreement) which is not a good thing,” Dr Fee said. “It is sad that Africa missed the trade boat in the 1980’s at the time when most of Asia came aboard, look at their success now. But it’s not too late; Africa can still get in the boat and accelerate its development by joining the global trade system. This is your (Africa) future.”
And Dr Fee has said international calls from Zambia were too expensive and urged the government to address the matter.
He said he had previously talked to late President Levy Mwanawasa on liberalizing the international gateway as a way of reducing the cost of international calls.
Labels: DEREK FEE, WTO
Read more...
Brazil slaps trade sanctions on US over cotton dispute
By BBC News
Tue 09 Mar. 2010, 17:20 CAT
The Brazilian government has announced trade sanctions against a variety of American goods in retaliation for illegal US subsidies to cotton farmers.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) approved the sanctions in a rare move. Brazil published a list of 100 US goods that would be subject to import tariffs in 30 days, unless the two governments reached a last-minute accord.
It said it regretted the sanctions, but that eight years of litigation had failed to produce a result.
It said it would raise tariffs on $591m (£393m) worth of US products - from cars, where the tariff will increase from 35% to 50%, to milk powder, which would see a 20% increase in the levy.
US farm subsidies are condemned worldwide. This archaic practice must stop
Carlos Marcio Cozendey Brazil's foreign ministry
Cotton and cotton products would be charged 100% import tariff, the highest on the list.
The Office of the US Trade Representative said it was "disappointed" by Brazil's decision and called for a negotiated settlement.
Critics say the US has given its cotton growers an unfair advantage by paying them billions of dollars each year.
In 2008, the WTO ruled that subsidies to US cotton producers were discriminatory.
"US farm subsidies are condemned worldwide. This archaic practice must stop."
However some analysts say major changes to these subsidies would involve modifying agricultural legislation - a tall order for the US Congress against a difficult economic and political backdrop, says the BBC's Gary Duffy in Sao Paulo.
Our correspondent says the dispute, which began in 2002, is one of the few in which the WTO has allowed cross-retaliation, meaning the wronged party can retaliate against a sector not involved in the case.
He adds that it appears the Brazilian government has deliberately chosen a wide range of products in order to have maximum impact.
Safety net
Cotton producers in the US argue that the system of subsidies has changed since the WTO made its original ruling in 2005.
"The US has made changes in the cotton programme as well as the export guarantee programme," Gary Adams, chief economist at the National Cotton Council told the BBC, adding that US cotton production was now 40% to 45% lower.
Mr Adams said he believed that subsidies were still justified.
"We feel this is a very important financial safety net for producers," he said.
Steven Bipes of the Brazil-US Business Council urged the US to take steps to avoid what he called "damaging" retaliation by Brazil.
"The business community finds it extraordinarily important that countries, including the US, comply with its WTO obligations and otherwise negotiate to find common ground when there are disputes," he told the BBC.
Labels: BRAZIL, TARIFFS, TRADE SANCTIONS, USA, WTO
Read more...
Small-scale industries
By Yusuf Dodia
Tue 09 Feb. 2010, 04:00 CAT
The integration of various state economies with their specific peculiarities, into one global economy overseen by the World Trade Organisation brings out new challenges for developing nations.
The protectionist mechanisms that traditionally supported small scale industries (SME’s) have had to fall away as WTO rules become enforced in developing economies. India has experienced the survival crisis for SME’s as a result of globalisation, and some vertical and horizontal evolution has taken place in response to the shifting environment.
On the vertical axis, many micro enterprises have emerged as some SME’s down-size and opportunities for new entrants into business become more visible. Conversely, some SME’s up-size to develop greater economies of scale, and embrace a larger portion of the value chain of production. On the horizontal axis, many SME’s have had to consider product changes and sector changes in order to survive by providing the right product for the right industry that is doing well in a particular environment.
For example in an economy where construction and other civil infrastructure developments are doing well, the SME sector has had to do some extensive research to find niche products and services that can be produced and offered to the large corporates in a bid to become a player in the construction value chain. Good specific examples have been steel riggers and rigging accessories, the manufacture of electrical accessories, the production of selected plumbing components, the supply of roofing accessories, and the development of various work tools and accessories for the construction sector.
Similar options can be developed in other prominent sectors such as food processing, agriculture, and tourism.
The SME sector deserves to be given a second look in respect to facilitation and promotion. The Citizens Economic Empowerment Commission, the Development Bank of Zambia, the Zambia Development Agency, the Ministry of Commerce Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Youth and Sport, the Ministry of Tourism, and the Ministry of Culture, all have a significant role to play in supporting and developing the SME sector.
It has already been acknowledged across the world that the SME sector is the backbone of any economy. Japan, India, China, and the Asian Tiger economies have all built their strong production bases on the SME sector. 88 per cent of Japan’s economy is based on the SME sector. The developed economies of Europe and North America have been financially battered partly due to the fact that corporations dominated the domestic economies such that a crisis in a corporation became a crisis for the nation.
This phenomenon basically makes the survival of private corporations the responsibility of the government rather than the shareholders, because of the possible large scale loss of jobs and heavy impact on the financial systems that a corporate collapse would cause.
Having learned the lesson, developing economies must rethink social and economic development strategies. This does not necessarily mean that all development programs must be abandoned. The SME challenge requires us to possibly focus more attention on the rapid and sustainable growth of the SME sector as a key program in the development agenda.
Part of the SME strategy requires developing economies to put in place a mechanism that ensures that when a large scale business or industry is established in a particular area, a linking program is immediately installed to promote SME’s to pick up the opportunities generated by the large investment.
Economic Zones, Industrial Parks, Mining Investments, Big Industries, Large Tourism Investments, Farming Blocks, and Corporate Services Providers, are all opportunities for SME’s to emerge and flourish and build the production base of the country.
The potential for SME’s is great, but three main provisions need to be in place for the potential to be unlocked. First, business promoters must become aware of the opportunities to supply goods and services. Second, there needs to be an availability of relevant skilled labour. Third, finance must be made available in a timely manner and at affordable rates.
The government, and specifically, the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Vocational Training, and various business and support organisations must assist to build the SME sector through the promotion of new and appropriate technologies; the hosting of SME development meetings for interested stakeholders; and dissemination events to highlight the opportunities for SME’s in the COMESA region.
We must keep in mind that as soon as the COMESA Customs Union is implemented, our economies will be integrated. The implications are that those countries in the region that have strong and sustainable large industries will dominate the region at some level, and those countries that have a vibrant SME sector will grow their economies even faster as they exploit the bigger markets offered by the region.
Zambia has some comparative advantages in the mining industry and can take advantage of this special endowment. However, Zambia does not have a monopoly of large investments within the region and therefore has no choice but to focus on an aggressive SME development program to remain a competitive and equitable member of the customs union.
Development of the SME sector is the way forward now, and will be the way forward for Zambia in the medium term. The big businesses should be encouraged to invest in Zambia, but not at the expense of sidelining our focus on Small and Medium Enterprises.
Labels: GLOBALISATION, SMEs, WTO, YUSUF DODIA
Read more...
Zambia questions WTO’s role in promoting fair global trade
Written by Chiwoyu Sinyangwe
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:41:31 AM
ZAMBIA has questioned the relevance of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in helping to promote fair global trade, accusing the trade body of spearheading modern day slavery by promoting Western favoured trade mechanisms.
Commerce minister Felix Mutati also said the current Economic Partnerships Agreements (EPAs) negotiations would remain an illusion for as long as the Doha Round remained unresolved.
Mutati told about 20 economic and financial editors from Commonwealth African countries attending a seminar on reporting globalisation at Protea Hotel last Sunday that Africans would survive the current global economic crisis as they were a strong people who even endured slave trade.
“Africans are strong. They survived slave trade, they will be able to survive. They are tough,” Mutati said. “Part of the solution to the current economic problems is for us to conclude our discussions on the Doha agenda. We must have some urgency in concluding the negotiations, then we can restore the lost trade globally which is estimated at US $2 trillion… at the moment, the relevance of the WTO is under serious question. Why have an institution that is not going to deliver?”
Mutati also said the success of the EPAs was dependent on the progress of the Doha Round of talks.
“Now the cousin of the Doha is called the EPA which is a subset of this Doha thing. We are saying that as we continue to have difficulties in Doha, let us conclude the EPAs but we are saying if the umbrella is defective, how do you conclude the EPAs when you can’t conclude the rule-based multilateral system?” he wondered.
Mutati also said the current global economic crisis had exacerbated the chances of Least Development Countries (LDCs) getting fair treatment from the Doha round talks.
Mutati also condemned Western countries for insisting on giving LDCs development aid and not opening up trade opportunities for them.
“…it’s a part of life you want to give us the hitherto of slave trade to block us from accessing the markets and creating deeper dependence on yourselves. That is what is called flamboyant slave trade. They hit you harder than the physical movement of people,” said Mutati. “We see ourselves in EPAs again facing the same issues that we thought would not be available in Doha. It is just the language that has changed a bit, but the substance has remained the same.”
Labels: DOHA, EPAs, FELIX MUTATI, WTO
Read more...
Unfair trade deals unacceptable - ITUC
By Joan Chirwa in Turin, Italy
Tuesday August 12, 2008 [04:00]
THE International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) has said trade agreements that bring more hardship to workers in developing countries were simply unacceptable. And European Union commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development Mariann Fischer Boel has noted that the failure of the ministerial meeting on the Doha negotiations was a serious defeat for trade and international development.
Commenting on another collapse of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks in Geneva a couple of weeks ago, ITUC general secretary Guy Ryder said the competitive pressures that cause violations of workers’ rights and unequal distribution of the benefits of trade require serious attention when the Doha negotiations resume.
Ryder said a change in the conduct of the Doha negotaitions was needed to deliver benefits to the poor, further asking developed countries not to require huge sacrifices by least developed countries (LDCs) in return for minimal commitments on their side.
He urged developed country governments to assume their responsibilities to contribute some fairness to the world trading system.
The WTO trade talks collapsed after more than a week of intense negotiations on agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) following the United States’ pledge to remove minimal subsidies but wanted massive concessions in emerging markets such as China and India.
But Ryder called on negotiators of the Doha Round to make a clear shift from the current NAMA architecture for negotiations in manufactured products in order to provide less drastic tariff reduction and increased flexibilities for developing countries.
“A change in the conduct of the Doha negotiations is needed to really deliver benefits to the poor,” Ryder said, adding “developed country governments have to assume their responsibilities to contribute some fairness to the world trading system and not require huge sacrifices in return for minimal commitments on their side.”
Although progress was made on a number of issues that would benefit developing countries, there remained clear imbalances in key areas. Considerable weight was put on developing countries to accept the NAMA proposals that were on the table, even though they stood to result in job losses and increased pressure on workers’ wages and working conditions, and prevented new industrial jobs from being created. Critics have argued on several occassions that allowing free trade between LDCs and developed countries could kill industries of the latter, as most of them did not have adequate production capacity to compete on international markets, such as the EU.
“Any final deal must be analysed in terms of its benefits and impact for workers and the poor,” stated Ryder. “An agreement that brings more hardship to workers in developing countries is simply not acceptable.”
WTO director general Pascal Lamy however thinks the failure of the talks did not mean the end of the Doha Round. Lamy said he remains convinced that what was on the table represented twice or three times more than had been achieved in any previous multilateral trade negotiation.
And Boel last week stated that the failure of the ministerial meeting was a serious defeat for trade and international development.
“The collapse of the recent ministerial meeting in the Doha Round of world trade talks was one of those occasions when most politicians want to keep out of the headlines.
Quite rightly, the failure of the ministerial meeting was a serious defeat for trade and for international development. Ministers from developing countries recognised this all too clearly, even if many development organisations did not,” Boel stated.
“We have been approaching the Doha Round in a very positive frame of mind – looking for possible gains instead of staying defensively on the back foot. In the closing stages of the most recent discussions, we were even invited to be an honest broker between other large WTO members which were struggling to resolve their differences.
“The future of the Doha Round is not clear at this stage. What is clear is that we must continue to bolster the multilateral trading system; only then will the benefits of trade be shared between the strong and the less strong.
Labels: ITUC, TRADE, TRADE UNIONS, WTO
Read more...
Implications for developing countries
By Kabanda Chulu
Wednesday July 30, 2008 [13:43]
Global trade talks collapsed on Tuesday after
the United States pledged to remove minimal subsidies but wanted massive concessions in emerging markets such as China and India. Commerce minister Felix Mutati said there was need to negotiate and define challenges posed by agriculture subsidies given to farmers in developed countries and their implications on the markets of least developing countries (LDCs).
“As LDCs we don’t see the United States and European Union removing subsidies offered to their farmers at the moment but we have to continue discussions that will eventually lead to complete removal of subsidies because this failure to progress at WTO level is a disaster that will have negative implications among developing countries,” said Mutati. According to the Bridges trade newsletter, the talks collapsed after the United States, China and India failed to compromise on farm import rules and WTO director general Pascal Lamy informed trade ministers that convergence could not be reached after 10 days of talks which made little progress.
The stalled meeting that was held at the WTO headquarters in Geneva was seen as a last chance for the Doha trade round especially that the United States and other national elections would make negotiations difficult over the coming years. “While farm import safeguards currently exist in rich and poor countries, they are rarely used and the dispute over the current proposals concerns the threshold for when developing nations can sharply raise their tariffs, and how high those taxes can rise,” it stated. “But the United States accused China and India of insisting on allowances to raise farm tariffs above even their current levels but the United States argued that this will violate the spirit of the trade round which is supposed to help poorer countries develop their economies by boosting their exports of farm produce.” The WTO Doha trade talks were launched in 2001 in the hope of boosting the world economy and helping poor countries, but have repeatedly stalled amid deep divisions between rich and poor nations.
Labels: FARM SUBSIDIES, FELIX MUTATI, GLOBALISATION, WTO
Read more...
Brazil Files WTO Complaint Against US Welfare Handouts
Following on the footsteps of an earlier Canadian complaint, Brazil has asked the World Trade Organization (WTO) to open up consultations between it and the United States over the latter’s farms subsidies. The request for consultations, first announced by Brazil on 11 July, comes on the heels of a 9 June request by Canada that a WTO dispute resolution panel be formed in a similar dispute.
Both Canada and Brazil have alleged that the United States has exceeded the US$ 19.1 billion a year it is allowed to hand out in corporate welfare scandals (so-called “amber box” agricultural subsidies) under WTO rules. In particular, Brazil and Canada claim that the United States exceeded the limit every year between 1999 and 2005, with the exception of 2003.
The latest Brazilian move comes as the United States and Brazil have locked horns in negotiations aimed at concluding the Doha Round of WTO talks. The stumbling blocks for those negotiations have been the dual issues of welfare handouts to agribusiness corporations in developed countries, and access to developing-country markets. Negotiations on these two issues between the G-4 — the United States, the EU, India and Brazil — fell apart last month, resulting in the group itself being disbanded.
In 2005, Brazil won a long-running dispute against the United States over the latter’s subsidies to cotton farmers. Brazil alleges that the United States has been slow to dismantle cotton subsidies in accordance with the WTO ruling. Currently, a WTO Compliance Panel is examining whether the United States has sufficiently changed its welfare handouts to cotton agribusiness corporations to comply with the ruling.
The United States recently labeled as “unacceptable” a proposal by WTO Agriculture Committee Chairmen Crawford Falconer calling for the country to cut cotton subsidies by 82%, according to the July 20th issue Inside US Trade.
Under WTO rules, a 60-day consultation period will now take place, after which Brazil can request that a panel be formed to look into the allegations. Earlier in the month the Canadian request for a panel was blocked by the United States, a move that is allowed once per request under WTO rules. Canadian officials have since suggested that Canada will wait to re-file its request in order to facilitate a possible alignment of the two cases should Brazil eventually request a panel after its consultation period.
Labels: BRAZIL, FARM SUBSIDIES, PROGRESS.ORG, WTO
Read more...
Trade vital for sustainable economic growth - expert
By Fridah Zinyama
Wednesday March 07, 2007 [02:00]
A TRADE expert has observed that Zambia has no hope of attaining sustainable economic growth without a substantial increase in its productive and trade capacity. In a presentation during a meeting organised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Doha, Quatar, Dennis Chiwele of Zambia’s DNC Consultants said the private sector should actively be involved in the country’s development strategy and efforts to reduce poverty. “This means that sector-specific strategies should adopt trade as a crosscutting issue and incorporate the need to promote and facilitate trade,” he said.
Chiwele said the use of the value chain approach by the private sector and government in identifying constraints that exporters experience and using the results was good, as it would stimulate the growth of agricultural trade. “There is need for support to both private and government institutions which promote trade and put measures that ensure exporters deal with both the supply and market penetration,” he said.
Chiwele added that there was also need for government to reduce the cost of doing business, as it would improve the business climate in the country. “Raising the country’s competitiveness in foreign markets can be done by reducing the cost of doing business in Zambia which has been the main complaint of producers in the country,” Chiwele said. He said urgent measures needed to be put in place to remove inefficiencies in key infrastructure sectors such as transportation and telecommunication. “On transportation, the current strategy of continuous rehabilitation of key roads is paying dividends and should be sustained and the concessioning of Zambia Railways is likely to raise efficiency of this railway system,” he said.
Chiwele emphasised the need for Zambia to become the hub for regional air transport but that this could only be accomplished with more investment into the sector. “The liberalisation of the telecommunication system in the country will also go a long way in bringing efficiency, gains and reducing tariffs,” Chiwele said. He also stressed the need for further deepening of financial markets, with a view to bringing down interest rates to make the cost of borrowing more affordable especially for small and medium enterprises and help to reduce exchange rate volatility.
Labels: OECD, TRADE, WTO
Read more...
