Although there still a lot to be done throughout the continent, a recent article by The Economist (Africa’s hopeful economies: The sun shines bright) was talking about the emergence of Africa’s “Lion Economies.”  However, the global financial crisis which, has crippled the U.S. and EU economies and is threatening global trade and commodity prices, could also derail Africa’s economic prospects and its significant progress to sustainable growth.

With this in mind, in January 2012, the African Union Heads of State and Government will hold their annual summit and focus on the theme of “Boosting Intra-Africa Trade”.  The choice of the theme is both appropriate and timely, given the challenges facing the continents ability to continue to rely on global trade and high commodity prices for growth, and the need to come up with strategies to improve the situation.

On average over the past decade, only about 10 – 13% of African trade is with African nations, whilst 40% of North American trade is with other North American countries, and 63% of trade by countries in Western Europe is with other Western European nations.

To this end, African countries have established the African Union, and created various Regional Economic Communities (RECs) to improve growth through trade.  In this context, the RECs are pursuing integration through free trade, and developing customs unions and a common market.  Eventually, these efforts are expected to converge to an African Common Market (ACM) and an African Economic Community (AEC), whereby economic, fiscal, social and sectoral policies will be continentally uniform.

Pooling economies and markets together through regional integration provides a sufficiently wide economic and market space to make economies of scale possible.  Trade enables countries to specialize and export goods that they can produce cheaply, in exchange for what others can provide at a lower cost.  Trade also provides the material means in terms of capital goods, machinery and raw and semi-finished goods that are critical for growth.  

More importantly, through such an economic marketplace, Africa can strengthen its economic independence and empowerment with respect to the rest of the world.  A united Africa can better negotiate for access to markets (foreign and domestic), commodity prices, foreign investment and technology transfers with its trading partners in the U.S. and the EU. 

Even more importantly, is the ability to negotiate better terms of trade with the BRIC countries, which operate more nationalistically in the global market then the U.S.-EU market economies (negotiating with governments vs. negotiating with corporations).  A generation ago, Brazil, Russia, India and China accounted for just 1% of African trade.  Today they make up 20%, and by 2030 the rate is expected to be 50%.  Therefore, as the BRIC economies go, so will Africa’s economic prosperity – thus enhancing the negotiating needs of the continent vis-à-vis the BRIC countries.

A New Continental FTA –

Therefore, if trade is a vehicle to growth and development, then removing the barriers that inhibit it can only help increase its impact.  In order to address this trend, African leaders are making new commitments to boosting intra-African trade.  

First was the landmark decision by COMESA, EAC (East Africa Community – Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda) and SADC to establish a single Free Trade Area.  The launch of this tripartite FTA initiative covering 26 African countries (more than half of AU membership) with a combined population of 530 million (57% of Africa’s population) and a total GDP of $630 billion (53% of Africa’s total GDP) has galvanized interest towards a much broader Continental FTA.

It will enlarge markets for goods and services, eliminate the problem of multiple and overlapping memberships, enhance customs cooperation and broader trade facilitation, promote harmonization and coordination of trade instruments and nomenclature, and broader relaxation of restrictions on movement of goods, persons and services.

The collaboration and cooperation of RECs through the Continental FTA should further improve regional infrastructure and consolidate regional markets through improved interconnectivity in all forms of transport and communication as well as promote energy pooling to enhance the regions’ competitiveness.

Export-led Growth Alternatives –

The one lesson from South-East Asia that all developing countries and regions must never forget is that export-led growth will always produce desirable economic benefits.  Focusing on existing areas where the continent has a comparative advantage (fuels, minerals, and even food products) will continue to generate valuable returns to be invested in those areas that need additional financing. 

Table 5: Africa’s world exports and imports: Average trade figures in $US, 1995-2006

 Source: Compiled from UNCTAD Handbook 2008.

Food production in particular (along with beverages, tobacco, and other agricultural products) could be a boondoggle for African countries.  Although the continent as a whole is a food importer (see chart from a recent Issue Paper prepared by the AU Commission for the 2012 AU Summit), Africa has 60% of the world’s uncultivated arable land.  With rising populations in Asia, food is becoming more and more valuable, and global food prices and constantly rising.  Africa more than Europe is in need of ‘Common Agricultural Policy’ which puts real focus and energy (meaning financing) behind this potentially very profitable segment of the economy. 

However, as the Commissions Issue Paper points out, the continents infrastructure and logistic shortcomings make all efforts to increase trade (export or intra-African) very expensive and uncompetitive.  In particular, because of infrastructure bottleneck (roads, ports, telecommunications, and storage) transport costs are 63% higher in African countries compared with the average in developed countries (and constitute 14% of the value exported in African countries, against 8.6% in developed countries).

Furthermore, delays at African customs are, on average, longer than in the rest of the world: 12 days in Sub-Saharan countries compared with 7 days in Latin America, less than 6 days in Central and East Asia, and slightly more than 4 days in Central and East Europe.  These delays add a tremendous cost to importers and exporters, and they increase the transaction costs of trading among African countries.  Each transport day lost due to customs and related problems are equivalent to additional tax.  In addition, delays and complicated procedures related to insuring goods and customs guarantee requirements raise the cost of exporting from Africa and compromise the continent’s competitiveness.  For food and agricultural (perishable) goods, such delays can be devastating – leading to the complete loss of entire shipments.

The Road Ahead –

For Africa, it often seems that the obstacles outweigh the potential for sustainable poverty alleviation and continuing economic growth.  The current situation is hanging in the balance, especially after the global financial crisis and the recent political upheaval in the north (see Arab Spring). 

But, incrementally, it appears that the leaders of the African Union are fully aware of the way forward; a Continental FTA that focuses on Intra-African trade.  The road (for regional integration) is long and hard, but if the AU can ‘build it’ then goods will come and go, and trade could do for Africa what it has done for South and East Asia.

AUTHOR: Nasos Mihalakas
URL: http://mihalakas.wordpress.com and http://chinatrade.foreignpolicyblogs.com/
E-MAIL: nasos.mihalakas [at] gmail.com

Let us analyze the anti corruption fast of Anna Hazare in New Delhi in August 2011. A careful study of the fast covering both the pre planning and execution, clearly indicate the enormous level of strategic planning that have gone into this public agitation.

While there maybe twenty thousand agitators sitting along with Anna Hazare during the fast in Delhi, and maybe around fifty thousand persons in different cities all over India, yet they remain a miniscule figure when compared to the total population of the country.

The hard fact is that the number of agitators who actually participated in Anna Hazare’s fast could be less than 0.01 % of the Indian population. People in the lower income group who are the real sufferers due to corrupt conditions prevailing in the country and who constitute around 30% of Indian population (more than 300 million people) did not participated in Anna Hazare’s agitation. Many people in the rural areas did not even know about this fast taking place in New Delhi.

Nevertheless, the impression that was spread around the country was that the whole country was behind Anna Hazare. The Government of India was brought to its knees by the people’s power on the streets. The protest method adopted in the colonial era, still remains the most potent form of agitation even today. It also serves a role model for groups and lobbies to launch a similar agitation to get their demands accepted by the government.

The impression that is being created is something that needs to be analyzed, because it has ominous portents for the future of democracy and the development of our country.

The credit of “highly successful” fast of Anna Hazare in New Delhi obviously goes to the skillful agitation managers or team Anna as its being called.

The agitation managers had controlled the movement so tightly that no negative campaign was able to make an impact during the time of the protest. The coercive methods adopted by them may have been disliked by lakhs of Indians, but they were “silenced” by the Anna Hazare’s strategists making more noise and diverting attention.

This is the most conspicuous part of Anna Hazare’s fast in New Delhi and it needs to be studied in detail because this could be a right subject in the management schools and can be learned under the topic agitation management, a lucrative enterprise in India.

In recent times, the agitators in India appear to have become highly skilled and some of them seem to have turned professionals as well. It’s not a emotional outburst that forms crowd but there are certain methods and theories that needs to be applied for the formation of the crowd.

So the crowd management is an interesting area of study, because India is a democracy and power lies with the people and they need to be mobilized in the streets round the year for different reasons and different purposes. It has to be backed by sound logistics and appropriate strategies in tune with the ground realities. It’s a highly specialized job that needs to be studied in all its seriousness.

This realization is soon dawning upon and the day may not be far off, when the management schools in India will start a special course on “agitation management”, teaching the students about launching agitations in a scientific way. A money spinning opportunity appears to be awaiting the B schools in the country.

What is striking is that many of the recent agitations all over India have been “successful,” with the state and central governments yielding to the threat and succumbing to the pressures of the agitators. Consequently giving an impression that the agitators are right and the method adopted is becoming a role model to be replicated in all the future agitation in this country.

The growing trend now is that the agitators seem to be measuring and testing as to what should be the ultimate intensity of agitation to paralyse the administration and bring down the government or any other agencies to their knees. A scientific survey and right timing, well managed and well executed agitation is sure to be successful.

Given their recent “successes”, many agitators seem to think that whatever may be the cause, if they could organise ten thousand agitators in one strategic place backed by money power and skillful media management they can become successful.

In a country like India, organizing ten thousand agitators is a cake walk. The social media has come as a bonus in the crowd formation, money power and media support are the other necessities. In such circumstances, the political parties and agitating groups first organize the money power and media support before venturing to bring the crowd on the streets to launch a successful agitation.

In the strategic planning of the agitation, they also take into consideration the quality of the political leadership and their lack of credibility which they exploit superbly working out the timing of the the agitation and in framing their pamphlets and speeches.

The Anna Hazare’s fast in New Delhi fast had all such planning done in a very meticulous manner. Every thing was in place, with Sonia Gandhi out of the country and weakest Prime Minister at the helm, they know that Tienanmen square cannot happen at Ramlila grounds. So with remarkable planning they launched the agitation sustained it for two weeks a time well thought out to make the government relent and declare mission accomplished.

The example that is set by the Anna Hazare’s fast in New Delhi fast has now its echo is the agitation against the Koodankulam nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu. Although opinions are divided on this issue, those against the nuclear power station had a field day. With the government unable to decide how to handle the protestors, this agitation is also considered to be “highly successful.”

The Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in the Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu is under construction since 2001 with Russian assistance. No one opposed to it and in the wake of Indo-US nuclear deal it was considered to be country’s asset in the generation of nuclear power.

However the radiation leak in March 2011 at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear installation due to tsunami disaster, led to the opposition of the construction of the power plant at Koodankulam. Thousands of protesters and villagers living around the Koodankulam nuclear plant blocked the highways and staged hunger strikes, preventing further construction work demanding the closure of the plant

A group of agitators by their skillful planning and methods have been able to stall the entire progress of the massive power plant. The central government has repeatedly given an assurance of the safety of the nuclear power plant but the protestors remain unconvinced.

The Koodankulam agitators taking the cue from the successful agitation management of team Anna are also managing this agitation in the same way. They have managed the media well ensuring that the media focus remain on them and their demands. Their methods include even disrupting the meetings that would support the Koodankulam power plant.

The agitation management theory propounded by team Anna has become so successful that may political parties and agitating groups are taking note of it. In Tamil Nadu, the agitators are getting emboldened and one group is now demanding the closure of Kalpakam nuclear power plant, believed to be having India’s nuclear assets.

Now the big question is how to bring such misguided people into seeing the reasons? India is not Singapore or China where such agitations would be put down with heavy hand mercilessly. India is a democratic country and we all enjoy the right to protest.

The argumentative Indian the debating Indian is the trademark of the citizens of India. There could be different opinions and view points on every issue and in the traditions of the Indian democracy all this has to be discussed and debated in the Parliamentary forum of the country.

Parliament alone is the right forum to debate and discuss every issue that concerns the citizens and the nation as whole. The constitution has given us the rights to remove those in power if majority of people dislike any action of the government but this could be done only by due electoral process.

In such background, if this trend of a small group of people skillfully organizing agitations by their money and muscle power and media management are allowed to have a free run, it can seriously retard the stability and progress of the country.

While we all are proud of the liberal Indian democratic traditions, at the same time, we should realize that in the interest of the nation, it is necessary to ensure that frequent agitations and protests do not hamper the growth of the country.

By resorting to coercive agitations of colonial era, and at the drop of a hat, using methods like so called satyagraha and fast unto death, are highly counter productive. In fact such agitation management is leading to ‘mobocracy’ and creating a condition of unrest in the country. It’s undermining our democracy our liberal values and all the good that goes into the making of wonder that is India.

It is high time that we wake up to such realities and arrest this trend gaining ground and doing more damage to the country.

AUTHOR: Mujtaba Syed
URL: http://mujtabas-musings.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: syedalimujtaba [at] yahoo.com

It is a departure of Bangladesh when it said Pakistan officials that it is considering to withdraw the objection regarding a EU move to grant beneficial import conditions to Pakistan textile producers as an aid measures following floods last year.

“Exports worth over $100 million will be affected if the privilege is extended to Islamabad,” Muhammad Faruk Khan, Ministry for Commerce said, “if the EU extends the facility to Pakistan we suggested it should be for two years and not for unlimited period”.

The commerce minister argued that Pakistan, as a cotton-producing country, would enjoy a competitive advantage over Bangladesh, should that happen.

However, Bangladesh supported the EU move to allow duty-free access of 75 products from Pakistan incorporating tariff rate quota on six garment items for two years, but said ‘aid for trade’ should not be mixed up.

Bangladesh does not have objection to a revised proposal if formally submitted to the WTO, Commerce Secretary Ghulam Hussain told a press briefing on Tuesday. He was flanked by Foreign Secretary Mohamed Mijarul Quayes, Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association, Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association and officials from WTO.

Bangladesh along with Sri Lanka, India, Brazil, Argentina and Peru also opposed the EU proposal last week at WTO meeting in Geneva.

Under the multilateral trade regime, privilege of duty-free access to a certain developing country must be endorsed by all WTO member countries.

Bangladesh, the second biggest textile goods exporters to the EU, enjoys duty- and quota-free market access to the market. The country earned about $18 billion by exporting readymade garment products in the last fiscal.

AUTHOR: Saleem Samad
URL: http://bangladeshwatchdog.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: saleemsamad [at] hotmail.com

At the margins of both these world leader gatherings, President Obama will be pushing hard for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a little-known but fairly liberal trade grouping which could put real pressure on China to finally change its mercantilist trade policies and undervalued currency.

Currently, the TPP includes only 4 small economies: Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. During the past couple of years, Australia, Malaysia, Peru, Vietnam, and the U.S. have been negotiating entry into the group. Now Japan has also announced that it will participate in the negotiations to form what, at least in theory, has come to be perceived as the “gold standard” for trade agreements that would go further than any existing arrangement.

All these Asian summits officially present an excellent opportunity for President Obama to take his effort for economic growth and job creation internationally. Two-way trade between the U.S. and the 8 TPP nations totaled $171 billion in 2010, compared with $457 billion with China, $181 billion with Japan and $88 billion with South Korea, according to the U.S. Commerce Department. Overall, the APEC economies account for half of global output, and represent the main target of the president’s efforts to double U.S. exports in the near future.

Unofficially however, U.S. efforts within APEC and more specifically the nature and composition of the TPP are designed to confront China on its mercantilist trade policies – especially the manipulation of its currency.’

MCT 2011, Papua New Guinea Current account balance is in millions of $US

What Is So Special About The TPP

According to Iwan Azis, head of the Asian Development Bank’s regional integration office (quoted in an interview by the FT), the agreement is intended to deal with what he calls “behind the border” issues. These include areas of what could be deemed domestic policy which go beyond the normal scope of trade agreements.

Currently, almost everything other then labor mobility is up for liberalization through the TPP, making it one of the most comprehensive free-trade treaties yet conceived. Beyond the ambitious goal of eliminate all tariffs over 10 years, the most significant areas that are currently negotiated include: government procurement, rules governing the conduct of state-owned enterprises, and intellectual property standards.

The TPP promises something truly groundbreaking: persuading Asian governments to accept new rules on the role of state-owned enterprises, the cornerstone of Asian-style capitalism. State-owned enterprises often benefit from cheap financing or government protection. China, in particular, is often criticized for seeking to ensure the success of national champions to the detriment of free trade and honest competition.

According to Bloomberg, Asian governments operate in many markets through state-owned companies with large bundles of cash reserves at their disposal. They exist both to make a profit and to build state power. Ten years ago, emerging countries added $100 billion a year combined to their reserves. In 2009, they took in $1.6 trillion. Sovereign wealth funds now control 12% of investment worldwide, according to the U.S. State Department. Sometimes, state-owned enterprises work in secrecy and without accountability to shareholders, independent boards and regulators. The lack of transparency puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage.

On the other hand, China undervalues its currency, by pegging the renminbi (RMB) to the dollar at an artificially low level. This, along with other subsidies and mercantilist trade policies, keeps Chinese exports cheap, and thus more attractive to consumers in the U.S. and Europe. Because China is the manufacturing hub for South-East Asia, where most assembling and export happens, China’s artificially undervalued currency is also impacting trade throughout the region.

As a result, other regional countries have pegged their currency to the RMB (Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, and of course Hong Kong) in order to compete with Chinese exports, but also to align their production pricing with China. More recently, Japan has been forced to intervene in the foreign currency markets 4 times during the past 14 months, in order to lower the value of the yen and thus facilitate greater exports for its manufacturing sector.

This is where the TPP can provide leverage for the U.S. The U.S. has not been able to convince China to change its trade and currency policies. Now it must try to put pressure on the other Pacific Rim countries to embrace the U.S. agenda. The timing could not be more opportune.

The U.S. Strategy So Far

Over the years, high on the list of U.S. international trade priorities has been getting commitments from China to enact more flexible currency rate standards to help balance trade; respect intellectual property rights; and limit the role of state-owned enterprises in the market. The TPP reads like the U.S. trade agenda with respect to China, now being formalized with some of the most important economies of the region.

So far, China has not been very responsive to U.S. demands for currency appreciation and more domestic (Chinese) consumption. In last year’s APEC meeting, President Obama directly pressed China over its massive exports aided by a cheap RMB, and urged countries with large trade surpluses (like China, Japan, and S. Korea) to shift away from their unhealthy dependence on exports and take steps to boost domestic demand. President Obama’s pleas fell on deaf ears (both then and now) as the Chinese leader insisted (as always) that China will make reforms at its own pace.

Unfortunately, singling out China as the worst offender (in mercantilist trade policies) has not worked so far as a strategy. On the other hand, the U.S. has greater leverage and a much different/better relationship with most of the other Asian member of APEC. Therefore, the U.S. should push the partnership to curb currency manipulation, Internet censorship, forced intellectual-property sharing and coerced joint ventures with state-owned companies. If the rest of Asia moves closer to the U.S. model, that could pressure China to do the same. Experts hope that creating a free-trade block of sufficient mass will put pressure on China to join and thus open and liberalize more of its economy. The idea is for the TPP to be a structure on to which other nations, including possibly South Korea, and eventually even China, could be eventually integrated.

Furthermore, China’s efforts to internationalize the RMB make it all that more pressing to confront them on their undervalued currency. (see, China’s Efforts to Internationalize its Currency) Although it is the most appropriate forum, doing this through APEC will not be easy. China has gotten very good at manipulating international organizations and getting what it wants out of them.

Although active at the technical level, China has not been helpful at the leader’s level with APEC’s efforts to achieve anything even remotely approaching regional free trade. While not wanting to be seen as obstructionist, China can nevertheless be expected to effectively exploit APEC’s inherent inability to act decisively in order to help ensure that the organization never fully achieves any meaningful trade reform. APEC will need strong leadership from the U.S. and President Obama to both address the trade distorting nature of China’s currency policy and strengthen regional free trade.

The ‘Elephant’ in Room – China

David Gordon of the Eurasia Group recently argued that China has overplayed its hand in Asia, and its rapid growth and aggressive posturing (both economic and military) “is inadvertently driving Asian states to build closer economic and strategic ties with the U.S. and each other.” Over the past 18 months China has taken a very an aggressive tone towards territorial disputes in the South China Sea and elsewhere. Mr. Gordon further argues that Beijing has miscalculated its ability to cater to nationalist feelings domestically without alarming its neighbors, and is now (inadvertently) driving Asian nations to build closer economic and strategic ties with the U.S. and each other.

And you know that the Chinese leadership is concerned when commentary in the Chinese press often casts the TPP as an aggressive U.S.-led ploy to squeeze China out of SE Asia. Of course this is exactly what China did back in 2005, with the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area. Covering more than 1.8 billion people, this FTA is the world’s largest in terms of population; and amounting to a combined $6 trillion in GDP, the third largest after the EU and NAFTA. The obvious advantage was that such an approach removed the US – and its oftentimes confrontational agenda – from the equation and it undermined U.S. economic linkages in the region. Now the U.S. is poised to formally accede to East Asia Summit (the ASEAN+3) next week, a move that the other SE Asian nations welcome, as they hope that the U.S. could provide a counterweight to China in the region.

Conclusion

Undersecretary of State Robert Hormats was recently quoted as saying: “There’s competition between the American economic model and the more state-centered economic model of China and other countries.” Many have been arguing for a serious debate on the damaging role of state capitalism on the global economy, and the ideological differences between the U.S./EU rule based global economy and SE Asia’s mercantilist trade practices.

Although there is a deeply pragmatic driving force behind the TPP, undoubtedly, it also has an element of seeking to wrest back global trade for nations perceived to play by the rules. The Obama administration might have finally found a trade strategy to deal with China’s undervalued currency and mercantilist economic policies.

Some Sources –

Trans-Pacific Trade Deal Could Revolutionize Commerce: View by the Editors of Bloomberg BuisnessWeek. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-11/trans-pacific-trade-deal-could-revolutionize-commerce-view.html)

Trans-Pacific Partnership: Far-reaching agreement could form powerful new trade bloc, By David Pilling. (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/47dd4d14-06cc-11e1-90de-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1dKBjz1mp)

America’s Pacific Century, By Hillary Clinton. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_century)

Obama heads to Asia focused on China’s power, by David Nakamura and William Wan. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-heads-to-asia-with-sharp-focus-on-chinas-growing-power/2011/11/10/gIQAOsQkBN_story.html)

A trade opportunity Washington shouldn’t pass up, by David Gordon. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-trade-opportunity-washington-shouldnt-pass-up/2011/11/10/gIQA1K3t9M_story.html)

AUTHOR: Nasos Mihalakas
URL: http://mihalakas.wordpress.com and http://chinatrade.foreignpolicyblogs.com/
E-MAIL: nasos.mihalakas [at] gmail.com

The textile and clothing entrepreneurs blame Pakistan for rising cost of production, power shortage, higher taxes and poor market access to developed countries, former textile minister Mushtaq Ali Cheema said.

It is understood that Bangladesh offered lucrative incentives, including uninterrupted power supply and tax-free status for the first ten years and tariff-free access to markets in the European Union.

In September a Pakistan business delegation held parleys with Bangladesh trade bodies and expressed their eagerness to relocate their textile industries to Bangladesh.

The exporters and manufacturers are disappointed with the Pakistan government for its poor business vision, which left the Pakistan textile in tatters, said Cheema.

Comparing business prospects in Bangladesh and Pakistan, Cheema said the cost of textile production is very high. Whereas, labor cost in Bangladesh is cheaper and the workers are more efficient, said the former textile minister.

Already several Pakistani entrepreneurs have invested in composite textile units in Bangladesh. The entrepreneurs argue that several facilities gives way to profit margin of an average 30 percent higher for textile exporters than in Pakistan, he added.

The international buyers and retail giants are reluctant to place orders with exporters for unpredictable breakdown of supply chain causing immense embarrassment, said the outspoken politician.

Another huge attraction in Bangladesh is the lack of tariffs in major markets such as the United States and the European Union. Classified as a ‘Least Developed Country,’ Bangladesh has been given special tariff-free access to markets in developed countries as an indirect form of aid.

Bangladesh’s textile industry has made such an impact on the global map that international buying houses have opened their offices there, which made Pakistani textile and clothing manufacturers to travel to Dhaka to negotiate orders for goods destined for markets around the world.

However, the entrepreneur’s business bodies are yet to explain the negative impact on millions of workers currently employed, after the textile manufacturer’s exodus from Pakistan.

Dr Mirza Ikhtiar Baig, Adviser to Federal Government on Textile said on Thursday that after withdrawal of complaints by Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India at World Trade Organization would pave the way for duty free exports of 75 items out of which 65 textile items to EU.

He said Bangladesh was already enjoying duty free market access to the EU on account of Least Developed Country and already exporting about $10 billion of textile products to the EU as on year ended June 2011, whereas Pakistan’s total exports to EU during the same period was $3.3 billion out of which $900 million comes from the 75 items for which duty free market access was allowed by the EU.

AUTHOR: Saleem Samad
URL: http://bangladeshwatchdog.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: saleemsamad [at] hotmail.com

Bangladesh competes with Pakistan has raised concerns last week about the impact of the European measures, which would make it easier for Pakistan to export textiles to Europe.

Europe and Pakistan had expected a long-announced plan for trade preferences for textile makers to be approved during a meeting of trade diplomats in Geneva this week, but a Bangladeshi complaint halted the move.

Pakistan was being granted the beneficial import conditions as an aid measure following devastating floods last year.

Bangladesh Foreign Secretary Mohamed Mijarul Quayes confirmed that it would withdraw the complaints in Geneva.

Expressing concern Pakistan’s foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar said Islamabad called Dhaka’s objections to the beneficial import conditions “an accident”.

Meanwhile the chairman of All Pakistan Textile Mills Association Mohsin Aziz said on Wednesday that the objections raised by Bangladesh about Pakistan on the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP)-plus status in the European Union market are unfounded and said that Pakistan could never be a threat to the Bangladesh textile industry in the EU market.

He justified Pakistan’s qualification for market access to the EU on grounds of humanity, comparing it to Bangladesh after being hit severely hit by natural calamities and terrorism.

The two-year cut in tariffs offered by the EU would be a small boost for Pakistan’s exporters. As a least developed country, Bangladesh enjoys quota and duty-free access to EU countries, unlike Pakistan.

Bangladesh exports to the EU have reached $16 billion in the textile sector presently from merely $2 billion a few years back. Pakistan has peaked to a mere $1.5 billion in a market of $80 billion.

AUTHOR: Saleem Samad
URL: http://bangladeshwatchdog.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: saleemsamad [at] hotmail.com

Fall Developments by the Administration –

This fall we saw a number of moves by both the U.S. executive and the legislative branch to pressure China to change its mercantilist trade policy and artificially undervalued currency.

On September 20, the U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk announced that the U.S. has filed a case against China before the World Trade Organization (WTO) to protect up to 300,000 American agricultural jobs that are being threatened by China’s imposition of duties on imports of American chicken products.

On October 6, Ambassador Kirk announced that the U.S. was submitting information to the WTO, identifying nearly 200 subsidy programs that China has failed to notify as required (and 50 subsidy programs by India) under WTO rules.  Through this action at the WTO, the U.S. is seeking the prompt provision of detailed information and data from China, in order to ascertain whether Beijing is violating its WTO obligations.  China is required to provide information on domestic subsidies programs every year, something that it has done only once since joining the WTO ten years ago.

On October 19, Ambassador Kirk announced that the U.S. is seeking detailed information (under WTO consultation provisions) on the trade impact of Chinese policies that may block U.S. companies’ websites in China, creating commercial barriers that especially hurt America’s small business.  What is of concern to the U.S. government is that businesses based outside of China face challenges when offering services to Chinese consumers when their websites are blocked by China’s national firewall.

Next month (end of November) signatories of the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) are hoping to finally receive China’s long-awaited revised offer for accession to the GPA.  This would address a major demand by the U.S. and other GPA parties, who had criticized China’s initial offer in 2007 and a revised one in July 2010 for being not only incomplete (only covering central government procurement, and not also including sub-central entities such as provincial and local authorities), but also being grossly overdue (China promised to join the GPA as part of its WTO accession – some 10 years ago).

The Senate Currency Bill –

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate approved S. 1619 on October 11 by a bipartisan 63-35 margin.  This currency legislation will make it harder for the U.S. executive branch to avoid taking action to counteract the trade effects of undervalued currencies such as the Chinese RMB.  In particular, the Senate bill will remove the question of ‘intent’ from Treasury’s bi-annual analysis of the exchange rate policies of major trading partners, and trigger retaliatory tariffs if the Treasury finds any country’s currency to be ‘misaligned.’

The legislation also instructs the Commerce Department that it cannot dismiss allegations that undervalued currency serves as an export subsidy in trade remedy cases simply because the benefits of currency undervaluation don’t extend only to exporters.  Currently, the Commerce Department considers countervailing duties when a country targets a specific industry or product, such as steel or shrimp or bedroom furniture.  The bill will require the Commerce Department to use estimates of currency undervaluation when calculating ‘countervailing duties,’ imposed against imports deemed to be state-subsidized (effectively treating the undervalued RMB as a subsidy offered by the Chinese government).

Therefore, the Senate bill will make it more difficult for the Commerce and Treasury departments to ignore currency manipulations and sidestep retaliatory measures against countries like China.

The Devil of the Details –

This is clearly a significant push by both branches of the U.S. government to force China to be more accountable with its trade policy.  Unfortunately, the acts are rather symbolic and the impact will be fairly small!

First, WTO cases take forever (at least 3 years), and China has learned how to ‘litigate’ at the WTO.  Although the Obama Administration has been much more active in the WTO then the Bush Administration, the precedent in which China drags its feet and even brings counter-cases (see China’s request for the establishment of WTO panel on the use of zeroing in U.S. trade remedy cases) has been set.

Second, the currency bill will only be significant on subsidies cases, and considering that trade remedies cases cover less than 4% of all U.S. imports it’s hard to see how it will have a major impact on Chinese exports (see past article by this author).  Also, many trade policy experts believe that the currency bill is vulnerable to a WTO challenge, because a benefit offered by the government to all domestic producers (like an undervalued currency) is not quite a subsidy under the WTO Subsidies Agreement.  Finally, the Senate bill will have to be approved by the House and signed by the President as well, both of which right now are looking very uncertain.

Third, according to many analysts, the appreciation of the RMB will not change the current U.S.-China trade imbalance.  This is because many items made in China are usually just assembled in China.  Although China exports a number of indigenous low value-added products, the majority of high-tech goods coming out of China are usually designed and developed in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, and are only assembled in China.  Also, if Chinese exports become less competitive, jobs are more likely to move to other low-wage countries of south-east Asia and less likely to move to the U.S.

However, the U.S. is not alone in its frustration with China.  According to Steven Mufson of the Washington Post, Brazil has taken a variety of measures to combat imports from China.  Brazil changed government procurement rules to favor locally made products.  It boosted by 30% a tax on imported cars, which have been gaining market share.  It revived an old law restricting the amount of farmland that foreigners can purchase.  And, Brazil recently suggested that WTO laws be changed to permit tariffs to be imposed against imports from countries with undervalued exchange rates.

Changes in China’s Domestic Economy –

China’s currency has been rising in value, and along with inflation in China it is putting an extra burden on Chinese manufactures and the Chinese economy.  Growing wages and a demand for more cheap labor mean that China is no longer the world’s top cheap producers.  Inflation is a real problem within the Chinese economy, rising to at least 6.5% this year.  Along with 7% appreciation of the RMB since June of 2010, doing business in China is almost 14% more expensive than a year ago, and consequently so are exports to the rest of the world.

Therefore, according to an article by Keith Richburg of the Washington Post, China’s trade surplus is now less than 3% of the country’s gross domestic product, down from 11% in 2007.  China has actually cut its trade surplus relative to the size of its economy, although this could be due to the global recession.

Finally, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, it is currently costing the Chinese central bank about $240 billion per year to hold down the value of the Chinese currency relative to other currencies, and this cost is growing rapidly.  To put this cost in perspective, $240 billion is considerably larger than China’s trade surplus of $183 billion in 2010.  Based on calculations by the Peterson Institute, the cost is about 4% of China’s GDP in 2010.  Moreover, this cost does not include the implicit tax on the banking system associated with China’s reserve holdings which are passed on to Chinese households in the form of depressed rates of interest on savings deposits.

The Bigger Picture –

Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post reported recently that what’s at stake is not just the U.S. trade balance with China but the nature of the global trading system, according to a recent book by economist Arvind Subramanian of the Peterson Institute (“Eclipse: Living in the Shadow of China’s Economic Dominance”).  Since World War II, the United States has presided over an open, non-discriminatory global trading system, which has been a big success. However, that has only served the needs of the U.S., with its comparative advantage over the rest of the world in capital, technological innovation, and the largest protected domestic market.

According to Mr. Subramanian, China might supplant this system with one focused on its needs.  It might pursue preferential access to needed raw materials (oil, grains, minerals); it might discriminate in favor of its friends and against adversaries; it might subsidize its exports and seek protected markets for them. It already does all these things — and as its power grows, it may do more.  Just as the U.S. enjoyed the economic benefits that come with having the world’s reserve currency, now China is using its undervalued currency to shape the world economic system to serve its needs.  (see also: China’s Efforts to Internationalize its Currency)

In Conclusion –

The two ways out of the current U.S.-China trade/currency war could not be more divergent.  On the one hand, many experts (including this author) have proposed an across the board 25% to 40% tariff on all imports from China.  This indiscriminate measure could put real pressure on China to dramatically change its currency policy, and shift its economic growth model from export led growth to domestic consumption.  On the other hand, Yao Yang of the Center for Economic Research at Peking University advocates for a Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and China, arguing that it could be better for both sides than currency revaluation.  Chinese tariffs for imports of consumer goods are fairly high (thus making up only 3% of China’s $1.4 billion imports last year), and an FTA between the U.S. and China could only benefit U.S. exports of consumer goods to China.

Unfortunately, once again, incrementalism trumped substance… Currency issues (from manipulation, to exchange, to sustainability) are vitally important to the global market and economic growth around the world.  They should be the main focus of America’s trade policy, to be considered in a grand debate of how to fix the global economy.  Instead, America’s politicians are stuck in the mock, deliberating on minutia that promises ‘revenge’ but fails to address the bigger issues!

AUTHOR: Nasos Mihalakas
URL: http://mihalakas.wordpress.com and http://chinatrade.foreignpolicyblogs.com/
E-MAIL: nasos.mihalakas [at] gmail.com

Committees in the House and Senate recently marked up the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The Obama administration is urging passage of all three relics of the Bush administration before the summer recess.

The full-court press on the FTAs represents a reversal for a president elected on a trade reform platform. During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama proclaimed his opposition to the NAFTA-style FTAs and boasted of his stance against the devastating North American and Central American agreements. As candidate Obama, he carefully distanced himself from the open-market, pro-corporate policies of his predecessor, calling for significant changes to the NAFTA model, including enforceable labor and environmental standards, and consumer protections.

The Global Crisis

In the three years since Obama wooed voters with talk of bold changes in trade policy, the need for reforms has reached crisis proportions. The global economic crisis left the United States with skyrocketing un- and under-employment rates. The government paid billions of dollars in bailout money to the corporations who caused the crisis. These corporations then turned around to post record profits and hand out astronomical executive pay bonuses. The evidence that FTA-fueled outsourcing benefits those corporations while putting Americans out of work has piled up, and polls show that a majority of U.S. citizens oppose NAFTA-style FTAs.

Abroad, labor violations and increasing inequality have exacerbated the plight of poor and working people in FTA countries, while creating a new class of mega-rich that often control national economies.

This would seem to be precisely the moment to make good on the promises to fix trade and investment policy, and to give workers everywhere a fair shake in a globalized economy that has been severely skewed toward the interests of powerful corporations — to devastating effect.

Instead, the Obama administration has gone from the audacity of hope to the audacity of presenting three pro-corporate trade agreements to a public suffering from a nearly 10 percent unemployment rate. As United Steel Workers President Leo Gerard concludes in a letter to Congress opposing the trade agreements, “Trade deals force working Americans to assume all the risk and encourage big multinationals to reap all the rewards.”

NAFTA Look-alikes

The new agreements look nearly identical to the NAFTA model, despite some tweaks and promises of advances that are mostly left outside the actual text of the agreements. Some of the most noxious elements that persist in the FTAs before Congress are: prohibitions on financial sector regulation and capital controls, foreign investment incentives that encourage off-shoring, separate legal regimes in which corporations can sue governments in specialized tribunals, weak environmental standards, vague and toothless labor standards, and intellectual property rules that monopolize knowledge needed for the public good.

The Economic Policy Institute calculates that the South Korean FTA alone will cost 159,000 U.S. jobs. Department of Commerce data shows that over the past decade of free trade policy multinational corporations cut their U.S. workforce by 2.9 million and increased overseas employment by 2.4 million. Under these trade and investment regimes, U.S. workers clearly suffer, which is why voters have supported candidates critical of NAFTA-style free trade. Although job displacement is frequently viewed as a zero-sum system where workers of different nations compete, the reality is that decent jobs — with dignified working conditions and real labor rights — are lost everywhere. FTAs turn the world into a global labor bazaar for corporations to bargain-hunt.

Labor unions in the countries purportedly hungering for a U.S. FTA overwhelmingly oppose them. Colombian labor organizations have consistently taken a stand against the Colombia FTA, asserting that it creates binding terms between two vastly unequal economies; would negatively affect agriculture, manufacturing, medicines and other vital sectors; would generate few if any net jobs; and would place thousands of local businesses in jeopardy. A group of Korean unions, farmers, and civil society groups traveled to Washington last January to “prevent the negative consequences that the Korea-US FTA will have on both of our countries.”

Both groups have presented their testimony to the U.S. Congress, exploding another myth: that FTAs are a “reward” to be bestowed on deserving allies. Powerful economic interests in these nations – typically over-represented by their governments — have brought tremendous pressure to bear in favor of the agreements. Meanwhile, the poor, workers, small farmers, the displaced, and indigenous and ethnic organizations nearly unanimously oppose them.

Colombians Against the FTA

A letter to the U.S. Congress signed by 431 U.S. and Colombian organizations urges members to reject the U.S.-Colombia FTA, citing “serious labor, human rights, Afro-Colombian, indigenous, and environmental concerns in Colombia.” The letter points out that Colombia continues to be “the most dangerous country in the world for trade union activists” and cites a 94 percent impunity rate for assassins of labor leaders. Fifty-one trade unionists were killed in 2010, and killings continue unabated in 2011.

An Action Plan developed between the U.S. and Colombian governments to assuage concerns does not form part of the binding text of the agreement. At this stage, the plan amounts to good intentions without establishing a firm basis for collective bargaining for cooperative members, or clear benchmarks for reducing violence, abuses, and impunity.

Promoters have countered criticisms of the Colombian government’s labor practices by asserting that increased U.S. investment can serve as a positive force in upholding workers’ rights. This argument has not been borne out in practice. In Guatemala, unionist murders increased following passage of CAFTA. The logic is simple. With more powerful economic interests in the country competing in a globalized economy, companies too often view workers’ rights as economic liabilities.

The debate on the Colombian FTA has also ignored the need to assess the effects of increased foreign investment on the continued armed conflict in Colombia. NAFTA proved that FTAs have much more to do with revamping investment regimes for multinational corporations than with the exchange of goods and services.

These investments also direct money into paramilitaries involved in drug export, money-laundering, and other crimes. There is ample evidence of these shady relations in the past, most notably the recent case of Chiquita’s payoffs to paramilitary organizations as part of “doing business” in Colombia. Such investments, associated with huge agricultural projects and mining ventures, often go hand in hand with violence and displacement. A report on Inter-American Development Bank megaprojects by the Americas Program and the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities showed the correlation between the expansion of palm oil mono-crops and forced displacement. At a recent prayer breakfast, Lisa Haugaard of the Latin American Working Group spoke of her experience gathering evidence of landowners expanding cattle ranching or mining operations at the point of a gun.

The many attacks on Afro-Colombian populations as part of this process led 24 members of Congress to write President Obama on July 6 stating, “We are concerned that the FTA would stimulate business development in Colombia at the expense of these vulnerable populations.” The congressional members also note that an estimated 5.2 million people in the country are already displaced – more than one out of nine Colombians. .

Jobs First

The Colombia FTA provides the clearest case of why free trade in the context of inequity and violence not only does not help but exacerbates the problems. The question of whether Colombia “deserves” the FTA can be easily answered. No population deserves an international agreement that directly or indirectly promotes displacement, violence, targeted murder, and the continued violation of the rights of indigenous and Afro-American populations.

Labor, human rights, and faith-based organizations are pushing back hard against the FTA onslaught, and offer tools for citizens to make their voices heard over the din of corporate lobbies.

For Congress to turn a deaf ear to those at greatest risk and in greatest need — both in the United States, and in the countries affected by the toxic trio of FTAs now making the rounds — would contradict U.S. values and U.S. public opinion. Especially now, as the U.S. economy still struggles to regain its footing, the best way to rebuild stability is to learn from mistakes of the past and strive for more fairness. A necessary step is to reject the Colombia, South Korea, and Panama Free Trade Agreements.

Part One: http://youtu.be/9SRHMWJRunI

Part Two: http://youtu.be/cploAMtQdic

AUTHOR: Laura Carlsen
URL: www.cipamericas.org and http://americasmexico.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: lecarlsen [at] gmail.com

Protectionism is when government endeavors to protect domestic producers/services against foreign competition. There are many indirect forms that a government can engage in unfair trade practices, some of which include:

1. tax breaks from the local and central government;
2. guaranteed loans, price supports, product subsidies;
3. high tariffs on foreign products competing with domestic ones;
4. designating foreign products ‘luxury’, thus taxing them at a higher rate because they compete with domestic products;
5. limiting domestic market access through various methods including government-sponsored ‘buy American’ ‘buy German’, etc. campaigns;
6. imposing quotas on imports;
7. reducing taxes on domestic products, claiming that a product has exclusive ‘intellectual rights’ thus constituting a monopoly as a brand;
8. introducing anti-dumping legislation,
9. providing protection/preferential treatment as part of a trading bloc (NAFTA, EU, etc.);
10. undervalued currency; and
11. facilitating domestic products from production to market by providing the infrastructure at taxpayer cost.

The wealthier the nation, the stronger the state fiscal structure, the more it is able to engage in one or more of the above mentioned practices. Of the trillions of dollars that the US has spent in the last three years to strengthen finance capital and stimulate the economy, a good deal of it was given out not to reduce unemployment, but as old fashioned pork barrel political payoffs and to protect US companies that have been weak against foreign competition. While the US has enjoyed fastest trade growth with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada, those countries see the US as protectionist. However, a ‘trade bloc’ is nothing more or less than a protectionist device for those outside of it, and a device to benefit corporations within it.

In the 1970s, the US made a political decision to help strengthen China in order to trade with the largest potential market on earth and to weaken the USSR at the same time. China under a strong state structure pursued quasi-statist policies, that is to say a regime of government protections in various forms including a cheap currency that helps exports. Forty years later, China is on the road to surpassing the US as the world’s preeminent economy, largely because it has been practicing ‘unfair trade’ argues the US.

US complaints about China include: a) trade dumping; b) undervalued currency; c) copycat cheap products unfairly if not illegally competing with name brands; d) cheap labor and subsidies for companies that are partly state-owned; e) pursuing anti-consumption policies, including limiting consumer demand with low wages, thus affording a huge trade surplus for their economy; f) underselling products such as steel in the US in order to secure market share.

For its part, China has complained that: a) the US keeps its currency undervalued and it is China taking the hit because it owns a large part of the US debt; b) the US has been providing various ‘trade relief measures’ to its exporters in violation of WTO rules; c) ‘buy American’ campaign is a form of protectionism; d) ‘stimulus’ packages by government to private sector constitutes a violation of fair trade.

These complaints against the US are the same as the EU has leveled. Given that the EU is America’s largest trading partner with trade flows of $2.3 billion per day, the EU has more in common with China. For example, the EU agrees with China about US stimulus package and buy American is a form of protectionism that costs EU billions of dollars in US government contracts.

Similar complaint about unfair trade have surfaced between US and Brazil, the second largest economy in the Western Hemisphere. There is a perception that Brazil is protectionist, that is more so than let us say the US that projects the image of a free trade nation. However, and the record shows that Brazil has fewer foreign trade violations than the US. For the last ten years, Brazil has been protesting through the World Trade Organization that the US not ‘dump’ cotton that is heavily subsidized, among other products. On four separate occasions the WTO sided with Brazil against the US that has been engaged in such unfair trade practices for the past fifty years in relationship to Latin America. The WTO gave Brazil the green light to retaliate against the US with tariffs because of the discriminatory subsidies.

Without tariffs, Brazil would not be able to develop the domestic industries, most of which are foreign-owned. For example, Brazil recently imposed tariffs on select glass goods from China, Argentina and Indonesia to prevent “dumping”. For example, one of the world’s largest glass multinationals, Japan-based AGC Group, has invested heavily in Brazil – expecting sales to surpass $23 billion by the end of the decade – and it is not in its interest to have cheap imports dumped in that market.

The average tariff in Latin America is 12.2%, while Brazil stands at 12.3%, lower than Peru and about the same as Argentina and Venezuela. In comparison to the U.S. that has historically found multiple methods to practice dumping and engage in unfair trade practices, Brazil looks fairly good. For example, the US slapped a tariff of 54 cents per gallon on ethanol, solely intended to protect US producers, especially Archers Daniels Midland company. Trying to circumvent WTO rules, the U.S. unilaterally decided that ethanol is a product outside the scope of WTO rules. In 2008, Brazil challenged the US before the WTO.

In the world in which we live today made up of formal or informal regional economic blocs, where the state is indispensable to supporting the capitalist system to prevent its collapse, where it is essential to support certain industries deemed of ‘national importance’ from foreign competition, where there are many ways to engage in protectionism, ‘free trade ‘ is a theory and not practice; it has been so since the outbreak of WWI. The question is not free trade, but fair trade and ‘fairness’ is limited to the strongest players (corporations and countries) in the global market.

AUTHOR: Jon Kofas
URL: http://jonkofas.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: jonkofas [at] yahoo.com

Gary Locke

This week the White House announced that Gary Locke, current Secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce would success outgoing U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, who is stepping down to possibly run for president. Mr. Locke is one of the two first ever Chinese-Americans to serve in the Cabinet, and is well known and respected in China. The announcement has caused a stir in Washington, DC, with the possible ‘musical chair’ reshuffling of the Obama cabinet to ensue.

Some rumors have current U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk replacing Mr. Locke, while others are predicting that someone from the business community will succeed him. The more interesting rumors involve the current chairman of the FCC Julius Genachowski, or Jeff Zients, who is the OMB deputy director for management and is also running the government reorganization.

This otherwise mandate reshuffling of cabinet positions has two very important implications for the U.S.-China relations. First, it signifies the great importance of trade in U.S.-China relationship. Mr. Locke is a former governor of Washington (home of Boeing and Microsoft), with close ties to the U.S. business community, who has made it his career to open-up new markets for U.S. companies. He is very familiar with U.S. business concerns in China, especially regarding issues of market access and intellectual property. He might not know much about China’s military ambitions, of China’s role in North Korea, but he will be a very well informed of all the U.S.-China trade disputes currently at the WTO.

On the other hand, it appears that Ambassador to China is more important than Secretary of Commerce within the U.S. government. Mr. Locke’s new assignment is being played as a ‘promotion’ and no one is saying that he has not done a good job so far. On the contrary, Mr. Locke has been a tireless promoter of the president’s agenda of increasing U.S. exports and opening new markets for U.S. companies.

Just last month, President Obama announced in his State of the Union address that he intended to reorganize the U.S. Federal Government – in order to make it more efficient and more capable of responding to the many economic problems we are facing. Mr. Obama said that he would start with trade, which is currently administered by the Departments of Commerce, State, Treasury, and the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, presumably because trade is very important to the U.S. economic recovery.

The Department of Commerce stands in the middle of the federal government apparatus, responsible for helping small business compete (Small Business Administration), protecting domestic jobs and companies from unfair foreign trade practices (Import Administration), assisting U.S. companies operating oversees (Foreign Commercial Service), opening up new markets for U.S. goods (Market Access and Compliance), and regulating U.S. exports of sensitive technologies and products (Bureau of Industry and Security). Why remove the current Commerce Secretary (it took Mr. Obama three tries to get a candidate), if trade is so important to the U.S. recovery?

The signal that the Obama administration is sending is very clear: trade with China matters A LOT more then trade with the rest of the world!!! It’s all about the U.S.-China trade imbalance.

AUTHOR: Nasos Mihalakas
URL: http://chinatrade.foreignpolicyblogs.com/
E-MAIL: nasos.mihalakas [at] gmail.com