Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:51:27 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: US and EC Presidents kill GATT
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

other Carl:
>Partisan Politics takes priority over world trade in the final days
>of the Bush Administration.
>
>Just one day after losing the presidential election, The White
>House announced Wednesday that the Global Agreement on Trade and
>Tariffs (GATT) talks had reached an impasse, and that $300 million
>in protective tariffs would be raised as retribution for French
>intransigence on the issue of agricultural subsidies.  The move
>sparked nervousness in every major market around the world,
>instilling fears of a Euro-American trade war similar to that which
>drove the Great Depression of the 1930's.  Partisan politics played
>a role on both shores of the Atlantic.

I always thought that Democrats were more likely to succumb to the
false attraction of protectionism ?

>
>European Community President Jacques Delors, a French politician,
 ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>protected his political viability at home by refusing to eliminate
>subsidies to EC oilseed farmers.  The agricultural lobby is a
>powerful, vocal and sometimes violent force in French politics.
>Mr. Delors faces French voters in March.

The EC does not have a President. M. Delors is president of the
European Commission, one of the arms of EC government.

Further, M. Delors is not facing the French voters. He may, however,
be keeping the French voters sweet for a later entry on the domestic
scene...

>
>In Washington, President George Bush met with his supporters and
>said "Let's finish the job with style."  He has apparently taken
>steps to keep his word.  Since he took office in 1988, he has
>driven the American economy to it's deathbed.  The coming tariffs
>threaten to "finish the job."  Both the timing and the content of
[further general ranting]

Do I detect a slightly partisan note here ? I think both sides want a
settlement really badly, and IMHO the US side has given far more than
the EC side. The proposed tariffs are quite clearly punitive rather
than protective, and are probably being announced for the express
purpose of focusing minds in the EC to achieve a satisfactory
conclusion to the talks.

Oh, and the thirty day thing ... under the rules unilateral tariffs
must have a thirty day waiting period. The US side asked teh EC if
they would agree to the tariffs, in which case they could have been
applied immediately. Not suprisingly the EC declined, so the US gave
the required 30 days' notice. I hope against hope that agreement is
reached before they take effect. It is clear that Britain, which holds
the rotating EC presidency until the end of the year, views a
successful conclusion of the Uruguay round as vital.

I wonder whether the US action is in part based on a belief that the
best hope for a settlement is during the UK presidency ?

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl Rosen           |  My views are my own.
>crosen@world.std.com |  I represent only myself.


--
 Dunstan  | Systems Design Division           |dv@gec-epl.co.uk
 Vavasour | CEGELEC Projects                  |From JANET:
          | Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 1BU, UK |dv%uk.co.gec-epl@uk.ac.uknet
          | Tel: (+44) 788 563535             |Fax: (+44) 788 560767
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU