Doha - Agreement at hand?

Yes, there are still government officials working on the Doha global trade talks. Yawn . From the office of Sen. Tom Harkin:


U.S. Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), the Chairman and Ranking Member respectively of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, joined 15 members of the Committee today urging a balanced outcome to Doha Round trade negotiations. In a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, the lawmakers expressed concern over decisions in the agricultural negotiations that can impact domestic producers. Trade ministers from key World Trade Organization member countries are expected to meet next week in Geneva in an effort to complete a framework agreement for the Doha Round.

“Twice before, the United States rightly rejected an unbalanced framework agreement and opted instead to continue discussions towards achieving a comprehensive result that will generate new trade flows,” wrote the Senators. “Discussion in Geneva must fulfill the underlying mandate of the Round to foster development, yet this objective need not and cannot be an exercise in which developed countries like the United States accept an unbalanced outcome. Neither U.S. agriculture nor individual commodities should have to shoulder an unfair burden of the negotiations. If you are presented with an unbalanced text, we urge you to reject it in favor of continued negotiations.”

Text of the letter is below:


July 18, 2008

The Honorable Susan Schwab
United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20508

Dear Ambassador Schwab:

As you prepare for the World Trade Organization ministerial meeting next week, we want to express our keen interest in the negotiations. Unfortunately our trading partners up until now have not committed to a balanced outcome involving an ambitious result in market access. Reductions in trade-distorting domestic support must be accompanied by real market access gains that are comparable in magnitude and will provide net gains for U.S. agriculture. Anything less will not receive our support.

The October 2005 proposal put forward by the United States would require substantial cuts in U.S. farm programs. These reductions in domestic support were carefully calibrated in relation to market access gains. However, many of our trading partners continue to call for greater cuts in U.S. farm programs while refusing to make significant tariff reductions. The provisions of the most recent text on sensitive products, special products, the proposed new special safeguard mechanism (SSM) and exceptions for recently acceded members do not inspire much confidence that a balanced agreement can be reached.

Twice before, the United States rightly rejected an unbalanced framework agreement and opted instead to continue discussions towards achieving a comprehensive result that will generate new trade flows. Discussion in Geneva must fulfill the underlying mandate of the Round to foster development, yet this objective need not and cannot be an exercise in which developed countries like the United States accept an unbalanced outcome. Neither U.S. agriculture nor individual commodities should have to shoulder an unfair burden of the negotiations. If you are presented with an unbalanced text, we urge you to reject it in favor of continued negotiations.

Very truly yours,

Tom Harkin Saxby Chambliss
Patrick Leahy Pat Roberts
Kent Conrad Thad Cochran
Max Baucus Lindsey Graham
Blanche Lincoln Norm Coleman
Debbie Stabenow Mike Crapo
E. Benjamin Nelson John Thune
Ken Salazar
Amy Klobuchar
Robert Casey, Jr.