From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: What Does a Clinton Presidency Mean for India?
Date: 9 Nov 1992 17:33:48 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1dkp56INNjac@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>, vivek@ecst.csuchico.edu (Vivek R. Prabhu) writes:
|> In article <1dk4ieINN78d@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
|> 
|> >
|> >You don't read the fine print, it seems. The trade war IS the result of a lack
|> >of fairness on the part of the EC, and especially France, which has twice
|> 
|> You must be joking. The U.S. is the biggest subsidizer of farmers in the 
|> whole world,  and it is penalizing other blocs for the purpose of having
|> its own interests protected.

True enough. But then, the US is prepared to stop subsidization and fight on 
an even playing field, which is fundamentally what the GATT talks are all about.
Specifically on the issues of oilseed concessions (which
is what the current war is about), the US has the moral upper-ground, since they
gave the EC concessions on that issue as long as 5 years back. The EC has been
TWICE ruled wrong on this issue, and the US has been remarkably patient with the
French on this. 

|> >been ruled guilty by a GATT panel of violating rules. The culprit in this game
|> >is Jacques Delors, the EC President who is unwilling to get the French farm 
|> >lobby to give up its subsidies, because if he did, he can bid a fond farewell 
|> >to his hopes of succeeding Mitterrand in 1995. In fact, the EC's negotiator 
|> >in the talks Ray MacSharry, was prepared to make concessions but then resigned
|> >because of pressure from Delors. John Major apparently called Delors in and
|> >read the Riot Act to him on Thursday, since the rest of the EC doesn't want to
|> >go along. My bet is that they will move towards resolution once they see that
|> >Carla Hills means business (they should have talked to some Indian businessmen
|> >who have dealt with her!!). 

|> Carla Hills is one more person like the permanent representative of the
|> U.S. in the United Nations, Jeanne Kirkpatrick.  All they could look at 
|> was the myopic policy adopted by the Govt.,  based on assumptions about
|> what the Govt. perceived.  That is why Carla Hills had to face the flak 

In this case, a GATT panel agreed with them, and twice, as I keep repeating
until the fields are white with daisies.

If free-trade is myopic, a large part of the world must be afflicted by an
epidemic of short-sightedness. And while you are right about Carla Hills
getting criticized by India, look at the position she was in. She
was the representative of a Republican administration doing the bidding of
a law which had been vetoed by a Republican administration (Super 301)
and passed over the veto. What did you want her to do? Disobey the law in
the performance of her duties? (I'd rather not touch on the topic of Jeanne
Kirkpatrick right now).


|> Regards,
|> Vivek.


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian