The WTO goods trade barometer, published on a quarterly basis by the intergovernmental organisation, signals changes in world trade growth two to three months ahead of official merchandise trade volume statistics.

In sharp contrast to August’s barometer, which marked the highest growth pace on record, the most recent read-out of 99.5 indicates growth is slightly below the baseline trend, which reflects what the WTO calls “a broad loss of momentum in global goods trade”.

The index’s current reading comes as little surprise, and is broadly consistent with a revised trade forecast published by the WTO in early October which foresaw global merchandise trade volume growth of 10.8% in 2021 – up from 8.0% forecasted in March – followed by a 4.7% rise in 2022. The forecast also predicted that the post-pandemic rebound in global merchandise trade levels would taper off in the second half of 2021.

The barometer is comprised of various individual indices that are combined to provide an overall score. The WTO notes that all of these fell in the latest period, although some sectors fared worse than others.

Felix Thompson is a Digital journalist at Global Trade Review (GTR) 

To read the full commentary by Felix Thompson on the Global Trade Review, please click here.

The post bodog online casino|Welcome Bonus_forecasted in March – appeared first on Bodog.

The latter is noteworthy because it is the first time a U.S. trade representative has shown up in Geneva since 2015, the Trump administration having had little use for the WTO, but, like her China speech, it represents a triumph of slogans over substance. She wants reforms at the WTO so that trade becomes a force for good—“a race to the top” rather than the bottom, which is straight out of the administration’s 2020 campaign playbook. Unfortunately, she offered little explanation of what that means or how specifically to achieve it beyond a goal to create a “more flexible WTO, change the way we approach problems collectively, improve transparency and inclusiveness, and restore the deliberative function of the organization.”

Transparency and inclusiveness have been popular terms with this administration. They seem to believe that bringing more people into the process and being more open about it will produce better policies. That may be true for a country trying to develop a policy, but it may not be the solution to the WTO’s problems. It is a consensus-based organization, and the failure to reach agreements is because the people already there can’t agree. It is hard to see how adding more voices will lead to more consensus. We may get a lesson on this in Glasgow when the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) convenes at the end of this month. Climate debates have featured increasingly active and vigorous interventions by nongovernmental organizations and civil society groups—precisely the people the Biden administration wants to include in trade policy formation. We will soon see if their presence and activism in Glasgow lead to better results. I’m not betting on it.

Ambassador Tai’s comments, in Geneva and elsewhere, on dispute resolution reform echoed those of the Trump administration: countries are using litigation as a substitute for negotiation, and the Appellate Body went off the rails in a fit of judicial activism that took its decisions beyond the text of the Uruguay Round agreement. I think she is right about that, although I can’t help noting the irony of a Democratic administration complaining about judicial activism.

Unfortunately, once again she did not offer any path for resolving the issue. The United States continues to block Appellate Body appointments without offering any specific reform proposals of its own. Hopefully, they are “under review” and will emerge shortly. (I continue to believe that this is a people problem, not a process problem, and the most direct solution is to restart the appointments process, insist on candidates that will commit to adhere strictly to the Uruguay Round agreement, and veto those that will not.) The result of our block, however, is that, despite our support for the WTO, we are the ones undermining it without providing any path out of the swamp.

You can see a similar approach on some of the issues currently under negotiation. On the vaccine waiver issue, the United States took a progressive stand (which I think was a mistake) but has done little since then to bring the parties together beyond exhortations. Likewise, on fisheries, aside from a proposal to add a forced labor provision—a good idea but not central to the core issues—we do not seem to be demonstrating any leadership.

To be fair, overt U.S. leadership can be a double-edged sword. It is often simultaneously demanded by other countries and then rejected when it appears. Over the years, our negotiators have learned that a public U.S. proposal can be the kiss of death, and it is often more effective to “lead” through other countries—a modern version of the old cliché that it is surprising how much you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit.

Nevertheless, we are at a point where the organization finds itself in a difficult position—few recent accomplishments to its credit, fraught negotiations as the date for the Ministerial Conference gets ever closer, a broken dispute settlement system—which is leading to declining confidence in the WTO and demands for the larger economies to step up and break the log jams. The United States is far from the biggest obstacle to accomplishing anything (India, I’m looking at you), but on countless occasions its leadership has been instrumental in bringing negotiations to successful conclusions. The lessons from history are that general statements of support are nice but don’t do the job, that U.S. leadership can be decisive in bringing issues to resolution, and that my T-shirt was right—the United States should lead, follow, or get out of the way.

William Reinsch holds the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. 

To read the full commentary from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, please click here.

The post bodog poker review|Most Popular_have appeared first on Bodog.

“We’re not really going to have what is [a] sustainable recovery” as long as vaccine scarcity continues, Okonjo-Iweala said at an Atlantic Council Front Page event hosted by the Council’s GeoEconomics Center. “The supply scarcity is driving behavior,” she said, not only fueling countries to competitively bid on vaccines, but also to “bid away vaccines from COVAX,” the global coalition tasked with improving COVID-19 vaccine access. “That’s why COVAX has been struggling to deliver what it should.” 

Okonjo-Iweala outlined ways the WTO can alleviate the scarcity problem across the supply chain for COVID-19 vaccines: by encouraging the removal of trade restrictions while working with manufacturers to unlock bottlenecks and spread their production expertise. “Without the transfer of technology and know-how, you also cannot manufacture or increase output,” she said. Members of the WTO are negotiating a proposal to waive intellectual property rights for COVID-19 vaccines, and Okonjo-Iweala hopes “they will come to a conclusion that is pragmatic, allowing developing countries to have access but also [protecting] research, development, and innovation.” 

Meanwhile, the WTO, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Health Organization proposed a $50 billion plan to end the pandemic, foster a sustainable recovery, and generate an estimated $9 trillion in global economic returns by 2025. Okonjo-Iweala said the plan includes $10 billion allocated to boosting preparedness for and prevention of future pandemics. 

Here are some of the highlights of Okonjo-Iweala’s vision for the WTO, from her plans to revive trust among its members to her philosophy on bringing the trade body into the digital era. 

A trust-building exercise ahead 

• Among the WTO’s challenges, “Bodog Poker : between developed countries and developing countries, between China, the US, the EU… You name it, in any configuration,” said Okonjo-Iweala. “[Trust] is something that we really need to build up.”  

• She suggested that one way to build trust is to revive the WTO’s original purpose set out in the organization’s founding document, the 1994 Marrakesh Agreement. The “WTO is supposed to help enhance living standards for people, create employment, and support sustainable development. This is all about people,” Okonjo-Iweala said. If the organization aims to “make things better for people, then it wouldn’t take twenty years to negotiate an agreement” that benefits people. 

• The comment alluded to the WTO’s twenty-year negotiations on prohibiting fishing industry subsidies that contribute to global overfishing. Trade ministers will meet to discuss the issue bodog casino on July 15, and Okonjo-Iweala noted that this meeting may “kick us along the path towards agreement” by the end of 2021. The leader of the negotiations, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the WTO Santiago Wills, has produced a draft agreement “that so far, nobody has thrown out,” Okonjo-Iweala noted. 
• If WTO members can strike deals such as a fisheries subsidies agreement and “work in these multilateral ways together,” Okonjo-Iweala said, that can begin “to build the trust that you can work together and you can deliver together.” 

A mission to get with the times 

• The WTO will also have to “update its rules and move with the times” to build trust among its members, said Okonjo-Iweala. “The world is going digital,” she noted, but she also acknowledged that “the WTO does not yet have an agreement” on digital trade and e-commerce regulations.  

• With her vision focusing on inclusive growth, Okonjo-Iweala said that a WTO approach to digital is key. She noted that during the pandemic, small- and medium-sized enterprises with digital access avoided shutting down entirely. Women specifically own many of these enterprises, “and when they do have access to the Internet, they can directly connect with their customers, and this is very helpful.” Thus, she concluded, “in order to have a fair, transparent, and level playing field for digital trade, and to solve many of the issues about cross-border data flows, you need some agreement.” 

• Okonjo-Iweala admitted that, while trade lifted people out of poverty, “people have been left behind.” She partially attributed that to protectionism and to technological changes in economic sectors. Weeks after the Biden administration released a plan for a new US industrial policy in an Atlantic Council speech, Okonjo-Iweala noted that industrial policy can be helpful in building infrastructure (like internet access) but cautioned that “industrial policies that lead to protectionism [are] something we need to watch,” and could be “against WTO rules” depending on their approaches. 

• Okonjo-Iweala said that eighty-three WTO members are participating in plurilateral negotiations to modernize trade rules for a digital world. “We’re very hopeful that… [by] the next [ministerial], we would be able to come up with an agreement with a set of rules that can help us underpin digital trade.” 

• But in equipping the WTO to deal with modern challenges, she acknowledged that helping to solve trade’s health and environmental issues, alongside digital issues, will be urgent, too. “I believe we can do it. We can’t do them all at once, but we can sequence what we want to do.” 

Support for Africa’s largest trade endeavor 

• Okonjo-Iweala is both the first woman and the first African to lead the WTO. The Nigeria native hailed the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which came into effect in January, as “one of the best things I think the continent has done. … The WTO has been a foundation for putting these rules together and, I hope, will be a companion as we try to implement [it].” 

• She noted that the WTO is ready to partner with the AfCTFA on issues like digital trade and improving Internet access. “We have a lot of work that we can do together to breach the digital divide,” she said. 

• Among the ways the WTO can support the AfCTFA, Okonjo-Iweala mentioned that the trade organization can help reduce barriers to the movement of goods and services across borders and encourage investment to create value-added exports and keep jobs on the continent. 

Time for reform? 

• When asked about differences in opinion among WTO members over issues like the benefits of free trade and the role of the dispute-settlement system, Okonjo-Iweala pushed back by saying that members “believe that trade and trade liberalization is the right way to go,” but that they differ on the way “they put this into practice.”  

• And while the differences in opinion may pose challenges for the WTO, they don’t erode the organization’s utility, said Okonjo-Iweala, arguing that instead of labeling the WTO as dysfunctional, members should come together to make it work better. “Is the best answer to walk away and say this doesn’t work? This organization, the WTO, has worked for the US, has worked for China, has worked for the UK and the EU, and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and enriched economies. It is still the same organization,” she said. 

Katherine Walla is the assistant director of editorial at the Atlantic Council.  

To read the full commentary from the Atlantic Council, please click here. 

The post bodog sportsbook review|Most Popular_the trade body into the digital appeared first on Bodog.

One possibility: the US can step back, its global reputation enhanced by having fought the good fight, and focus on other issues. The WTO will have failed the test of “relevance” or “doing good” in today’s world (expressions of USTR Katherine Tai).  While keeping an open mind about efforts of others, the Administration never was that invested in making big changes to revitalize the WTO, at least of the kind that the EU, for instance, has been proposing-such as the ill-timed demand for tighter disciplines on subsidies at a moment when governments are spending flat out to prevent economic collapse from the pandemic. (On subsidies reform, the US is supposedly in agreement with the EU in principle but is much more focused now on doing industrial policy as opposed to curbing it).

On the vaccine front, the Biden Administration would have a range of options, some more unilateral while others would focus on cooperation mechanisms such COVAX.  Senator  Elizabeth Warren, former professor at Harvard Law School, has long argued that the federal US government has sufficient legal authority to break patents where overriding public health concerns are at issue.  She is probably referring to “march in” rights in the Bayh Dole Act, which allow the government to engage in compulsory licensing where federal funding has been involved in a patented innovation; one of the criteria is that “action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs which are not reasonably satisfied by the contractor, assignee, or their licensees.” The pandemic seems to be the test case for these provisions, which have so far not been applied, as I far as I can learn. I’m not an IP lawyer but I’m sure that any effort of the Administration to move in this direction for purposes of alleviating global needs would be heavily debated and litigated. As a non-expert on US IP law, I offer no view of who would win the court case, but I’m pretty sure that pharma won’t prevail in the moral debate. Mobility of people is a major part of the spread of the virus, and soAmerican “health and safety needs” are compromised if the rest of the world can’t get reasonable access to vaccines.  Once it has the intellectual property, the Administration can ensure it is freely available to any country or manufacturer that wants to move into production, and can do so safely and reliably. This solution isn’t as comprehensive as a waiver, as it could only apply to those vaccines invented with US federal funding in the picture. Still, combined with US technical assistance, and help on ingredients, it could go fairly far.  

But there is another choice-disruptive in its own way. The US could decide to push the WTO beyond its current consensus-based approach. Ambassador Tai has made it crystal clear that the US will try first for consensus in Geneva. But this pronouncement also sets the scene for the US if need be declaring at some point that a consensus “cannot” be reached and therefore that, in accordance with the terms of the WTO Agreement (Article IX:1), the matter at issue “shall” be decided by voting.  Yes, “shall”, not might or should. In this case (a waiver) a supermajority of 3/4 would be required. If there were any situation that could push the WTO beyond consensus decision making, it would be the exceptional challenge of the pandemic, one shared by the peoples of all WTO Members. Since the consensus practice gives a veto that de facto will be most easily exercised by the major powers, breaking the practice almost certainly needs to be supported by a major power like the US (here India might be on board too). The nice thing about moving in this direction in the specific circumstances of the pandemic is that it could be presented as a truly unique recourse to unused but totally valid treaty provisions, thus as a limited & fully legal departure from custom, but also serving as a first tentative step in an institutional shift that might lead to faster, more successful negotiations at the WTO and increasing global relevance.

Robert Howse is Professor of International Law at New York University Law School. Professor Howse has been a member of the faculty of the World Trade Institute, Berne, Master’s in International Law and Economics Programme.

To read the original commentary from the World Trade Law Blog, please visit here.

The post Bodog Poker|Welcome Bonus_the Biden Administration appeared first on Bodog.

“A group of nearly 80 WTO members issued a joint statement on 21 January pledging not to impose export restrictions on foodstuffs purchased by the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP) for humanitarian aid.

“’We recognize the critical humanitarian support provided bodog sportsbook review by the World Food Programme, made more urgent in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises,’ the group said in their statement, available here. ‘We therefore commit to not impose export prohibitions or restrictions on foodstuffs purchased for non-commercial humanitarian purposes by the World Food Programme.’

“Discussions regarding export restrictions on food purchases by the WFP have been taking place in the WTO’s Committee on Agriculture in Special Session as well as the General Council.

“The WFP is the United Nations agency charged with delivering food assistance in emergencies and combatting hunger.”

The submission by the 79 WTO Members is embedded below (WT/L/1109).

WTO

While the pledge by the 79 WTO Members is a significant event, the fact that the full WTO membership was not willing at the December 2020 General Council meeting to commit to such action is problematic and a reflection of the inability of WTO Members to come together on a broad array of issues. This has reduced the relevance of the WTO as a negotiating forum and prevented the updating of multilateral rules. It has led to a proliferation of free trade agreements and actions outside of the WTO. Considering the role that the World Food Programme plays and the list of beneficiaries, it is also quite extraordinary that there wasn’t an agreed General Council Decision adopted in December.

The UN World Food Programme

The UN’s World Food Programme (“WFP”) has for fifty years supplied food to those in need around the world. Consider the overview from the WFP’s webpage, https://www.wfp.org/overview (emphasis in original).

“The World Food Programme (WFP) is the leading humanitarian organization saving lives and changing lives, delivering food assistance in emergencies and working with communities to improve nutrition and build resilience. 

“As the international community has committed to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition by 2030, one in nine people worldwide still do not have enough to eat. Food and food-related assistance lie at the heart of the struggle to break the cycle of hunger and poverty. 

“For its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict, WFP was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020. 

“In 2019, WFP assisted 97 million people – the largest number since 2012 –  in 88 countries. 

“On any given day, WFP has 5,600 trucks, 30 ships and nearly 100 planes on the move, delivering food and other assistance to those in most need. Every year, we distribute more than 15 billion rations at an estimated average cost per ration of US$ 0.61. These numbers lie at the roots of WFP’s unparalleled reputation as an emergency responder, one that gets the job done quickly at scale in the most difficult environments.

“WFP’s efforts focus on emergency assistance, relief and rehabilitation, development aid and special operations. Two-thirds of our work is in conflict-affected countries where people are three times more likely to be undernourished than those living in countries without conflict. 

“In emergencies, WFP is often first on the scene, providing food assistance to the victims of war, civil conflict, drought, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, crop failures and natural disasters. When the emergency subsides, WFP helps communities rebuild shattered lives and livelihoods. We also work to strengthen the resilience of people and communities affected by protracted crises by applying a development lens in our humanitarian response.

“WFP development projects focus on nutrition, especially for mothers and children, addressing malnutrition from the earliest stages through programmes targeting the first 1,000 days from conception to a child’s second birthday, and later through school meals.

“WFP is the largest humanitarian organisation implementing school feeding programmes worldwide and has been doing so for over 50 years. In 2019, WFP provided school meals to more than 17.3 million children in 50 countries, often in the hardest-to-reach areas.

“In 2019, WFP provided 4,2 million metric tons of food and US$2.1 billion of cash and vouchers. By buying food as close as possible to where it is needed, we can save time and money on transport costs, and help sustain local economies. Increasingly, WFP meets people’s food needs through cash-based transfers that allow the people we serve to choose and shop for their own food locally.

“WFP also provides services to the entire humanitarian community, including passenger air transportation through the UN Humanitarian Air Service, which flies to more than 280 locations worldwide.

“Funded entirely by voluntary donations, WFP raised a record-breaking US$8 billion in 2019. WFP has 20,000 staff worldwide of whom over 90 percent are based in the countries where the agency provides assistance.

“WFP is governed by a 36-member Executive Board. It works closely with its two Rome-based sister organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. WFP partners with more than 1,000 national and international NGOs to provide food assistance and tackle the underlying causes of hunger.”

The countries in which WFP provides assistance are shown in the list from the WFP webpage, https://www.wfp.org/countries, and include many important trading countries like China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and many more in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Central and South America. Beneficiary countries include the following:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tanzania, The Caribbean, The Pacific, TimorLeste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

The December 2020 General Council meeting and proposed General Council Decision

During the December 2020 General Council meeting, there was an effort to adopt a General Council Decision entitled “PROPOSAL ON AGRICULTURE EXPORT PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME DRAFT GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION,” WT/GC/W/810, TN/AG/46 (4 December 2020). The draft document was modified three times to add cosponsors. WT/GC/W/810/Rev.1, Rev.2, Rev.3. Concerns were raised by India, Pakistan and some African countries (from the above list, at least India and Pakistan and most, if not all others, were beneficiaries of assistance from the the WFP). Hence there was no agreement on adopting the draft General Council Decision.  See Washington Trade Daily, December 16, 2020, pages 3-4, WTO Members Talk Food Procurement, https://files.constantcontact.com/ef5f8ffe501/1b51b4fa-b0a3-4a60-9165-8c5f6d7977a4.pdf; Washington Trade Daily, December 18, 2020, pages 5-6, India Questions WFP Exemption, https://files.constantcontact.com/ef5f8ffe501/ec47c599-5c0c-47fd-80cf-a46244c5af8b.pdf.

While WTO Members always have multiple concerns and agenda items being pursued, the failure of the membership as a whole to agree to something so limited in nature and so critical for addressing global hunger was disappointing to many and reflects the seeming inability of the WTO Membership to move forward as one on the vast majority of issues before the WTO. 

Conclusion

In a post earlier this month, I argued for the need for the WTO to move to liberalization by the willing without benefits for non-participants but with agreements open to all to join.  See January 18, 2021, Revisiting the need for MFN treatment for sectoral agreements among the willing, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/01/18/revisiting-the-need-for-mfn-treatment-for-sectoral-agreements-among-the-willing/. While the MFN issue doesn’t come into play for the 79 Member pledge not to restrict exports to the WFP, the failure of the full WTO membership to agree to the draft General Council Decision is a further manifestation of the need for new approaches to promote expanded trade liberalization. 

In recent speeches, Deputy Director-General Alan Wolff has expressed both the lack of unity at the WTO on an issue of importance like the draft General Council Decision and also welcomed the joint pledge by the 79 WTO Members not to impose restrictions on exports to the WFP.  See WTO press release, DDG Wolff outlines possible responses to calls for WTO reform, 13 January 2020, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/ddgaw_13jan21_e.htm (“Less than a month ago, a General Council meeting took place which lasted over 15 hours (over two and a half days), a recent record for length. It had only one substantive trade policy item on its agenda for decision, the consideration of which produced no agreement. The issue was whether Members would agree to forego a modicum of the policy space they now have by agreeing not to impair procurements by the Nobel-Prize-winning World Food Program. A witness to the proceeding could be forgiven for perceiving drift of the organization in its not living up to its potential. Viewed through a different lens, this was no more than sovereigns reaffirming that they could not be bound without their consent.”); WTO press release, DDG Wolff stresses need to make progress in WTO negotiations to enhance resilience of farm sector, 22 January 2021, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/ddgaw_22jan21_e.htm (“I welcome the pledge this week of WTO members accounting for most of world agricultural exports to refrain from imposing export restrictions on foodstuffs purchased by the World Food Programme for non-commercial humanitarian purposes.”).

If there is to be a WTO capable of reform, the Members will need to reconfirm core principles and find ways to agree instead bodog online casino of searching for excuses to oppose. The membership seems far from sharing a common vision or accepting core principles. Too often, Members are engaged in a search for blocking progress. While all Members undoubtedly share blame for the current challenges, on the topic of blocking the minor proposal to ensure the workings of the WFP, one can look to the Members who remain non-participants in the joint pledge as the problem on this particular issue. 

Specifically, the list of those WTO Members pledging not to impose export restrictions on foodstuffs to the WFP is made up of 79 WTO Members, meaning 85 Members did not join the pledge (at least not yet). Some of the major Members who are not participating in the pledge include the following — Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa, the Philippines, Malaysia. the Russian Federation, Hong Kong (China), Turkey. In the WTO’s World Trade Statistical Review 2020, China, Indonesia, Argentina and India are among the top 10 exporters of agricultural products and of food in 2019; China, the Russian Federation and Hong Kong (China) are among the top ten importers in 2019. WTO, World Trade Statistical Review 2020, Tables A-13 and A-14, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2020_e/wts2020_e.pdf. China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines and Turkey are all beneficiaries of assistance from the WFP.

While there is much that needs to be done for the restoration of the WTO’s relevance, the pledge by 79 Members suggests that liberalization by the willing may be the only road forward.

Terence Stewart, former Managing Partner, Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart, and author of the blog, bodog poker review|Most Popular_Congressional

To read the original blog post, please click here

The post Bodog Poker|Welcome Bonus_seems far from sharing appeared first on Bodog.

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_What do we want to accomplish appeared first on Bodog.

Farmers, especially from North India, recently staged a tractor march in Ludhiana to express their anger against rising fuel prices and the three ordinances introduced by the Central government, namely The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance, 2020, The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance, 2020 and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020.

At the same time, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was speaking at the Ideas Summit, on ‘Building a Better Future’, organised by US-India Business Council (USIBC), inviting American companies to come and invest in ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’. The prime minister said the agricultural reforms undertaken by the government would facilitate ease of business and announced that the food processing industry “is expected to be worth over half a trillion dollars by 2025”.

These contrasting images of the tractor protest and the PM inviting American companies to come and invest in India after promulgating the ordinances tell a tale. A tale of power and its consequences. The government’s power as a determinant of policy, which acts both internationally and in domestic circles, trickling down into individual farmer’s lives.

What is this power in the context of the agricultural reforms? How is it linked internationally and what will be the consequences for Indian farmers and the agriculture sector? Going by the Modi government’s argument, all three ordinances are going to empower farmers and bring prosperity to the agriculture sector. Nevertheless, farmers and farmers’ organisations are criticising the government for making way for the removal of essential protective frameworks of Minimum Support Price (MSP), Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) and other safety nets.

Are these concerns valid? A reading of the ordinances, especially the  Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance, clearly marks a shift from APMC. Clause 6 of the ordinance frees traders from paying any “market fee, cess or levy” for procuring the produce outside the APMC, which in other words is an “incentive” for traders to procure outside the APMC. Many might argue that the APMC is riddled with corruption.

However, incentivising traders and companies to procure outside the APMC does change the power relation as it reduces the farmers collective ability to bargain. While there is no question that the APMC markets and their laws are in need of reform, its role in ensuring that farmers can avail an MSP cannot be overlooked. While the new ordinances allow leeway to farmers of Uttar Pradesh to sell their produce in Tamil Nadu if they get a better remuneration price, it does not take into consideration the practical restraints to such a shift.

In the Farm Census 2015-16, nearly 86.2% of small and medium-scale farmers owned less than 2 hectares bodog online casino of land. Considering the scale on which small and medium farmers produce, is it feasible for them to sell their produce outside their mandal or district where the APMC market yard is present without a legal guarantee of MSP?

While only 6% of total farmers are covered under the MSP and the remaining 94% are already covered by the market mechanisms, the MSP regime does cushion farmers and acts as a benchmark rate for farmers to negotiate with respect to. Reforms, therefore, should be an attempt towards widening the reach of the MSP and legalising it rather than eliminating policies or making them redundant, which has also been an important demand in most farmers’ protests over the years.

How then did the Modi government venture into this reform agenda in the midst of a pandemic? The answers might lie in India’s negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). The AoA which came into inception with the Uruguay round wanting free trade in agriculture without any barriers, the WTO saw state support i.e. subsidies in agriculture as a hindrance to integrate agriculture into the free market economy.

These subsidies became “trade distorting” and became a bone of contention between the developing and the developed nations. The latter accused the former of heavily subsidising their farmers through price supports (MSPs), tariff regulations on exports and imports and protectionist policies.

The subsidy regime is divided into three boxes Red, Amber, and Green depending on the degree of subsidy being provided. In AoA red box is prohibited but includes Amber which limits the subsidies like support prices, or subsidies directly related to production quantities up to 5% for developed nations and 10% for developing ones. It means a country like India cannot provide price support for farmers in the form of MSP and other subsidies cumulating to more than 10%. If any breach happens, it’s a violation. This was precisely what happened with the India Food Security Act which brewed a storm at the WTO and India had to negotiate hard to procure food grains for its own citizens to assure them food security with a temporary peace clause at Bali.

The twist here comes with the Green box which also comes under AoA, dealing with direct support to farmers in terms of direct support to producers, income support, insurance schemes and other non-product specific and decoupled policies. Majority of developed countries’ subsidies or assistance to their farmers fall under this box which has no limitations on spending. For example, the recent paper published by Centre for WTO Studies at Indian Institute of Foreign Trade shows that the US roughly spends USD 61,286 per farmer and the European Union a sum of USD 8588 according to the 2019 data.

This is a carefully planned gradation of subsidies and farmer support that limits developing nations support while giving the developed nations a free hand. India spends USD 282 with most of this spending coming from the Amber box which has a limitation on spending. Developed countries have been long arguing developed countries like India to further reduce their subsidy bill from the Amber box and shift to subsidies of Green box. However, this is out of the question for nations like India with tight budgets compared to the deep pockets the developed countries enjoy.

Making MSPs redundant through the latest ordinances show how India is playing to the developed nations gallery. Moreover, by allowing contract farming in India through these ordinances brings under questions the intention of the government in a nation where more than 86% of the farming community owns less than two hectares of land. The policy of contract farming shifts the power balance away from the farmer to the company. It will push the farmer as a land-owning tenant to the interest of the corporates. The assurance of Sub Divisional Magistrate being the dispute authority to decide on matters of contention between farmer and the company seems to take the Indian agriculture sector back to the zamindari system.

Similarly, the changes in the Essential Commodities Act with virtually freeing many of the items from the list only strengthens the suspicion on the government’s true intention to be acting in favour of the corporate and further marginalising the consumer and the producer. While it neither benefits the consumer or the producer, it gives the private player the legal right to hoard and take advantage of high prices. The extension of invitation by PM Modi to US companies to come and invest in India immediately after declaring the ordinances has raised a few eyebrows.

At a time when the world is debating over how to deal with the impacts of climate change on agriculture and countries are contesting policy measures, there have been growing calls from farmers’ advocacy groups and non-governmental organisations to revamp the trade regime of the WTO to coordinate it with mitigation and adaptation policies to tackle climate change.

Now, when India is witnessing twin problems of drought and floods simultaneously, the need of the hour is to have laws that protect farmers’ income. What is needed is a drought, flood and cyclone protection law for farmers to ensure income for damaged crops, not with an insurance model advocated by WTO but a state-supported scheme. We have seen how the AoA promoted insurance scheme turned out to be cash juggler for the insurance companies and loss for the government and farmer with claim rates and claim amounts being low.

The power balance hence is not with the farmer but with the MNCs that are calling the shots through the WTO, the World Bank and governments. The ordinances promulgated by the Modi government reflect a growing partnership with this corporate power and not actions taken in favour of farmers. India cannot become ‘Atmanirbhar’ by selling our farmers interests to the corporates.

N. Sai Balaji is a research scholar at the Centre for International Politics, Organisation and Disarmament (CIPOD).

To view the original blog, click here.

The post bodog sportsbook review|Most Popular_the power balance away appeared first on Bodog.

The post bodog sportsbook review|Most Popular_Its swiftness appeared first on Bodog.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

In preparing for today, I found myself looking back seven years to when I first addressed you as Director-General. And I can now tell you from experience, the last speech is much harder than the first.

The first is about goals, and a game plan to tackle the future.

The last one is about what has been achieved; how much is left to do; and saying farewell to people we really cherish. This final part is the toughest of all.

Back in September 2013, I said that the WTO was at a crossroads. It’s still at a crossroads – and will continue to be for some time yet. This is not surprising, because this Organization is too important to have it easy.

Each word, each comma that we negotiate here has a direct and measurable impact on public policies and business realities – and consequently, on people’s lives.

Our agreements are subject to dispute settlement procedures that are automatic and consequential – and I’ll come back to this point.

This means that negotiated outcomes here are always the product of truly complex, long and painful diplomacy.

It was clear then, when I made that first speech to you, that we needed to deliver agreements to bring this Organization closer to the changing realities of the 21st century.

And together, we did. The Trade Facilitation Agreement, in Bali, put the Organization back on the map as a venue for global trade rule-making. It gave us confidence that the multilateral track was viable, and that with enough political will and pragmatism, we could strike deals of great value for trade, growth and development.

After that, we tried to advance the remaining Doha Round issues. It was, quite frankly, a tall order. We confronted the gateway issues head-on, and tested a large number of potential approaches. But despite intense efforts, including daily meetings and consultations with permanent representatives, it became apparent that positions in many areas were further apart than ever, with gaps widening instead of closing.

Still, in Nairobi in 2015 we managed to harvest some important multilateral outcomes. Eliminating agricultural export subsidies and the trade distortions they create had been a longstanding goal for many members. We expanded the Information Technology Agreement, reducing and eliminating tariffs on $1.3 trillion of new-generation tech products.

Not long after Nairobi, and like all multilateral institutions, the WTO was engulfed by strong political headwinds. These headwinds, and the associated tensions around trade, owe much to dramatic advances in technology, and the changes they have provoked in labour markets and in societies as a whole. It is also true, I have to say, that domestic social and economic policies have not done all they could have to contain inequalities of income and opportunity, and to ensure that the benefits from trade are more widespread.

Despite these very challenging circumstances, standing still, for this organization, was not an option. We needed to find ways to move forward.

It was clear that Doha issues could not simply be abandoned. We needed to find new, creative ways of pressing on in areas of fundamental importance to a sizeable portion of the membership. And indeed, we have been able to make progress in the ongoing negotiations on fisheries subsidies as well as in discussions on agriculture and other important issues.

At the same time, it was an inescapable reality that there were other, very real issues that needed to be addressed within the WTO. To take one example, it was simply not acceptable for the WTO to be in the 21st century, decades into a profound digital revolution, with no truly consequential discussions on digital trade.

We therefore began to test other approaches available in the WTO toolbox. Groups of members started to explore innovative ways of advancing issues of interest. You know them all: e-commerce; the facilitation of investments for development; micro, small and medium sized enterprises; the domestic regulation of services; and trade and the economic empowerment of women.

This second track of work received an important boost at MC11 in Buenos Aires in 2017. Those initiatives have since become an important part of work here in Geneva, with a growing number of participants from both the developed and developing worlds, and a welcome spirit of transparency and inclusivity from the proponents.

Delivering on both the multilateral front and the joint initiatives will be vital for the future of the system. For the road ahead, MC12 will be a key landmark. It must deliver credible agreements and map the way for further reforms.

I had hoped to work with you to deliver precisely such outcomes this past June. But the postponement of the ministerial to next year, because of the pandemic, brought me to the conclusion that I needed to step down this summer.

Had I stayed on for the remaining year in my term, the DG succession process and the MC12 preparatory process would have overlapped. My decades of experience working with this Organization left me firmly convinced that this would have irremediably compromised prospects for success at the ministerial.

In light of the COVID-19 crisis, MC12 has become even more important: it will be a key decision point for you to shape the direction of the post-COVID global economy.

The date of the ministerial, which now seems likely to be held next June, was beyond my control. The timing of my succession, however, was within my power to change. My early departure allows you to decouple the two processes. This was best for the system, making my choice a no-brainer.

It’s a no-brainer because the WTO is much more than just a job to me. My first posting in Geneva was in 1997. We lived almost five years in this building. Even after going back to Brasília in 2001, my kids used to tease me that I hadn’t actually left Geneva. I was still spending a big portion of my time here, first as a litigator, then as a negotiator.

In 2008, I came back as Brazil’s Ambassador to the WTO. Five years later you appointed me Director General.

Twenty-three years of my professional life have been intrinsically linked to this Organization. I have had many happy moments, but also – like most of us – my share of disappointments.

But even at the lowest points, not once in these 23 years did I ever doubt the role that this system plays in improving people’s lives around the world. We will be worse off if the system’s relevance and effectiveness are allowed to erode.

When I announced my decision to step down back in May, I said that MC12 would be a stepping-stone to the future of the WTO.

But what should the future of the WTO look like? That’s the question. Of course, it will be shaped by you, the members. But I want to take this moment to share with you my own views on the subject.

And let me start with a warning: don’t assume that the WTO has a future irrespective of what you do here.

To assure the future of the WTO, it is fundamental that members truly believe in the need to update the system. Some may still believe that the pressures afflicting the WTO are localised, and therefore temporary. I want to assure you that they are not.

The pressures on trade, and on the WTO, derive from fundamental structural changes in the global economy. Changes in technology, groundbreaking business models, and shifts in the balance of economic power – they all have fundamentally altered the way countries and companies interact, not to mention the ways we go about our daily lives.

The rules we negotiated back in the 1980s and signed into force in 1994 are still very relevant and much-needed. They are, in fact, the last bastion preserving some degree of order and predictability in global trade and economic relations. Lose this, and we lose fundamental pillars of peace and prosperity.

Yet lose them we may – if the WTO does not evolve.

In substantive terms, there is a wide range of issues that are before you right now. Each of them would offer a meaningful contribution to WTO reform.

But at least as important as the ‘what’ of reform is the ‘how’.

The WTO is now driven by 164 members. I don’t have to tell you how different they are, and how differently they think. A one-size-fits-all recipe will not work.

We should remember that agreements at the WTO have always sought to accommodate the diversity of our members with flexibilities of different kinds.

• Special and differential treatment (S&D) was one way.
• Member-specific flexibilities was another: subsidy caps, quotas, higher tariffs on certain products, and individual services commitments that open some areas – but not others.

In short, our agreements always had a way of accepting different contributions from members.

Our Trade Facilitation Agreement offers a new framework altogether for accommodating diversity among members. It allowed each country to specify the flexibilities and the time they needed to implement the Agreement. And it did so without compromising the high level of ambition that was the final destination.

An open-minded approach to flexibilities would open up a new era of fruitful work for the organization. And when exploring potential areas for such work, unanimous agreement cannot be a prerequisite for starting conversations at the WTO. It’s as simple as that.

Not all members will necessarily be ready for a particular conversation or a particular step. That is okay, and absolutely natural. But if full consensus is required to even begin to discuss any issue, this Organization will not survive. I’m glad that this is not where we are today.

The joint statement initiatives potentially represent one path to a more nimble, flexible WTO. No member is compelled to participate, yet the doors are open to any member willing to join – or willing to leave.

Plurilateral agreements have been with us since day one. But the fact is that any new flexible non-multilateral arrangement – whether it is the JSIs or something similar – will inevitably raise important practical and systemic questions.

Multilateralising their results may not always be possible. But limiting their application to signatories leads us to many grey areas. There will be many systemic questions, and the answers will differ, I suppose, from case to case. I’m sure you will be able to find them.

But even before you get to that point, you will need to get past the most common question I hear bodog sportsbook review in discussions about such arrangements. And that question is: “Won’t this approach compromise multilateralism?”

That’s a big question. But my answer would be: “This approach is the only way we can save trade multilateralism.”

And in this Brave New World of ours, predictable and updated rules are of enormous value. They will be pursued, believe me. If not in the WTO, then in other less representative forums. And if governments are unwilling or unable to define the rules of the game, then these rules will be set by private parties – even less representative, and even less likely to deliver gains for everyone. We would all be better served if these rules, if these parameters, are negotiated at the WTO’s large table.

Then again, we know that agreements reached at the WTO have historically been valued for their enforceability through the dispute settlement mechanism. And here, too, we have a problem.

We all know where we are with the appeals stage of that mechanism. Finding a solution is not particularly hard, if you all truly want a solution. And in this regard, I’m not sure this is where things stand.

There are stop-gap solutions out there. Some of you are moving in that direction already. Nevertheless, the fact that we are not in a position to agree on the means of enforcing our agreements speaks volumes.

Whatever decision you take on this, I would argue that a dysfunctional dispute settlement mechanism introduces an unacceptable asymmetry in the system. This asymmetry is to the particular detriment of the smaller and more vulnerable parties to any dispute. I don’t think we can simply sweep this under the rug, and it must remain a priority for WTO members to address.

I’m sure that much of what I’ve said today is not news to you. I have made many of these points on previous occasions. Nonetheless, I thought I should clearly spell out what I think the most critical challenges and the more promising avenues are. And to the extent I have been able to facilitate and encourage some of this new thinking during my tenure as Director-General, I have been happy to do so.

All these innovative approaches are just a start, I would say, but a very promising start. Members now have a foundation on which to build new rules and standards, without ever forgetting the multilateral track and the fundamental issues that must still be addressed more fully.

We’ve achieved a lot and we must be proud of that. But much remains to be done.

I wish the next Director-General every success in addressing these and other challenges. I will certainly be supportive of your efforts and will be a passionate advocate for the system wherever the future takes me.

As I said earlier, the WTO has been an integral part of my life. Over the past 23 years, I have made life-long friends among delegates, peers – including you yourself, Mr Chairman – and the Secretariat.

Speaking of the Secretariat, I want you to know that we have within these premises nearly 700 souls who dedicate their careers to serving you, members, with commitment, professionalism, and a degree of excellence that you will not find anywhere else. I knew that before, and my time as DG confirmed everything I said. I am privileged to have worked with them and you are fortunate to be supported by people of such calibre.

I would like to extend special thanks to my deputies – Alan, Fred, Karl and Xiaozhun – for their wise counsel and active engagement with members and the wider trade community. And I want to thank each and every member of the Secretariat, both those who worked closely with me, including past and present members of my office, and those that I unfortunately didn’t get to see as much. Without you, we would not be the organization we are.

On the subject of support, I must find a very special place for my family – which is growing by the minute. In both the good moments and the difficult ones, they have all been great enthusiasts for the WTO project. Our fantastic daughters, Paula and Luisa, who with their dear husbands, Andre and Thiago, have given us five beautiful granddaughters: Alice, Olivia, Eva, and the twins Catarina and Isabela. My mom, Normisa, with her unconditional love and advocacy. My equally loving “other” mom, Maria, who raised me as surely as my blood relatives. My father and brother, Renato and Claudio, who are no longer here, but who are always here. And my wife, Lelé, without whom none of this would have happened, who has always been there to help me reach higher and catch me when I fall.

Regardless of what has or has not been achieved over the years, this human connection with all of you is what I prize the most. These deep and fundamental connections never disappear. So I’m sure that this is not a farewell. This is, as we say in Brazil, just a “tchau”.

Thank you all for your strength, your companionship, your solidarity, your support and your friendship. Come visit!

Thank you all once again, and like I said before: Tchau!

To view the original speech, click here.

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_the WTO project. Our fantastic appeared first on Bodog.

To view the original blog post at the World Trade Organization, please click here

The post Bodog Poker|Welcome Bonus_WITA Academy Fellowship appeared first on Bodog.