European leaders are set to gather in Brussels Nov 7 to try and agree to a consensus ahead of a global financial summit to address reforms to international financial institutions.
France, which holds the rotating European Union presidency this year, said in a brief statement Friday that the informal meeting of EU heads of state and government will prepare the EU's 27 member-states for an upcoming financial summit Nov 15 in Washington on the global financial crisis.
The summit was announced by the White House after a meeting last weekend between US President George W. Bush, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.
The White House said President Bush would host leaders of 20 of the world's richest nations and biggest emerging economies, including India and China.
At an emergency EU Summit Oct 15-16 here, EU leaders had agreed that a massive overhaul of the world's financial system is needed to prevent another financial crisis and asked Sarkozy and Barroso to hold further discussions with the US administration.
The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, however, failed to answer questions from journalists over what preparations were in place for the Nov 7 summit.
Commission spokesperson Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen said European Commission members are to meet Oct 29 to prepare for the upcoming global summit in the US.
The US-hosted talks are expected to draw leaders from the Group of 20: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, Britain, the US, and the European Union.
Showing posts with label Mexico. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mexico. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
EU awaits official WTO ruling
Leaked documents suggest US can impose sanctions
The year 2008 has brought another loss to the European Union in its more than a decade-old tariff dispute with Latin American banana producers and the US, as a leaked interim report from the World Trade Organization (WTO) clearly sided with the US on who can then levy sanctions on European imports equal to damages incurred by US companies.
Have patience, do not react and this too shall pass! The mantra advocated by many in the labyrinths of power in Brussels seems to have slipped badly as 11 years down the road the “Banana Wars” of the late 1990s came back knocking on the doors of the European Commission.
Joining the fray, the US had said in a statement: “The US request relates to the EU’s apparent failure to implement the WTO rulings in a 1996 proceeding initiated by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and America.”
After the 1996 WTO ruling, the EU had committed to bring its tariff-quota regime for bananas in compliance with the ruling no later than January 1, 2006, said the US statement, lamenting the fact that “the EU banana regime put in place on January 1, 2006 features a zeroduty tariff quota that is allocated exclusively to bananas from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Bananas of Latin American origin do not have access to this duty-free tariff rate quota and are subject, instead, to a 176 Euro/ton duty.”
During a press conference later, the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development Mariann Fischer Boel had wondered why in the first place the US was interested in the banana sector as it is not a banana producer, but then she answered her own doubts with the mention of Chiquita, a major banana company, as the possible cause for US to intervene.
The Commissioner, however, added that the EU will look into the matter and take appropriate steps. Chiquita, based in Cincinnati in the US, could not be contacted for their immediate reaction but it had said in its annual report last year that the tariff added USD 75 million in net costs in 2006.
European banana sector sources told New Europe that other US exporters, including Del Monte and Dole, are also affected, adding that the European Commissioner has her facts correct that no bananas are grown in the US, but in the trade circle of today’s era of globalisation everyone is aware of the large farming interests of these leading world exporters globally, especially in the Latin American region.
The US statement pointed out that WTO ruling had said “the EU’s regime discriminates against bananas originating in Latin American countries and against distributors of such bananas, including several US companies,” adding “The EU was under an obligation to bring its banana regime into compliance with its WTO obligations by January 1999.”
The EU’s tariff-only banana policy took effect in 2006, after a nearly five-year transition from a license-and-quota system that the US and Latin American producers had fought since its introduction in 1993.
The WTO ruled against the old system in 1997 and upheld US sanctions of European goods in 1999.During negotiating for a single tariff system to modify its complex web of duties and quotas for imports, the European Commission had suggested EU duties of 230 Euro and then scaling them down to 187 Euro, but WTO panels had rejected the proposals arguing that those were discriminatory against Latin American (Latam) nations.
Out of that deadlock emerged the figure of 176 Euro, but the conflict simmered on.Even after the introduction of the new EU single tariff system, there was widespread dissatisfaction, and Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere got into the driver’s seat to find a political solution based on a thorough monitoring of the EU banana imports and various price systems in force.
But, after waiting nearly for a year, Ecuador decided to go ahead with the WTO route culminating in a victory late last year. On November 23, 2006 Ecuador was joined by Colombia as a third party. Panama and the US followed and more countries are set to join in the fray according to sector insiders.
The EU’s current banana import policy significantly differentiates access treatment as a tariff-quota volume of 775,000 tonnes is exclusively reserved for bananas of ACP origin. ACP bananas within the quota enter duty-free (i.e., at a 176 Euro/tonne margin of preference), with unlimited ACP over-quota access authorised at a tariff of 176 Euro/tonne.
On the other hand, an “autonomous” tariff of 176 Euro/tonne (a rate more than double the previously-applicable rate of 75 Euro/tonne) applies to all other bananas.Bananas are the most important agricultural product in Ecuador, and its exports account for 25 percent of all Ecuador’s agricultural exports. Some 22 percent of all banana output is aimed for the European Union market but this share to EU 27 today is down by 3.3 percent.
On the other hand, in Europe it is a “sensitive” commodity and there is a protection regime for the sector.While bananas grown within the bloc have shrunk to only 11 percent of the total EU supply, highly-subsidised production is important to the Spain’s Canary Islands, the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe and Portugal’s Madeira and Azores islands.In 2007, Europeans ate some 4.9 million tonnes of bananas, making the bloc the world’s biggest banana market but consumption per capita remains two kilogrammes below the average consumed in the US.
Over two-thirds of the fruits consumed come from Latin America, earning a total of approximately 637 million Euro in tariffs for EU coffers and a further “duty-free” 16.3 percent from Africa and Caribbean countries.
It’s interesting to note that only on Colombian bananas is there a taxation of 200 million Euro, and social pundits along with market observers agreed that this money could be utilised to aid rural communities, such as Colombia, where former presidential candidate and Colombian-French citizen Ingrid Betancourt is kept as a hostage.
Bananas are set to be prominent in the upcoming finalisation of Association Agreements with Central American and Andean countries while appearing on the radar of WTO Development Round but according to reliable WTO sources in Geneva, the latest leaked ruling can be appealed against by the European Union only when these are finalised and published.
The year 2008 has brought another loss to the European Union in its more than a decade-old tariff dispute with Latin American banana producers and the US, as a leaked interim report from the World Trade Organization (WTO) clearly sided with the US on who can then levy sanctions on European imports equal to damages incurred by US companies.
Have patience, do not react and this too shall pass! The mantra advocated by many in the labyrinths of power in Brussels seems to have slipped badly as 11 years down the road the “Banana Wars” of the late 1990s came back knocking on the doors of the European Commission.
Joining the fray, the US had said in a statement: “The US request relates to the EU’s apparent failure to implement the WTO rulings in a 1996 proceeding initiated by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and America.”
After the 1996 WTO ruling, the EU had committed to bring its tariff-quota regime for bananas in compliance with the ruling no later than January 1, 2006, said the US statement, lamenting the fact that “the EU banana regime put in place on January 1, 2006 features a zeroduty tariff quota that is allocated exclusively to bananas from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Bananas of Latin American origin do not have access to this duty-free tariff rate quota and are subject, instead, to a 176 Euro/ton duty.”
During a press conference later, the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development Mariann Fischer Boel had wondered why in the first place the US was interested in the banana sector as it is not a banana producer, but then she answered her own doubts with the mention of Chiquita, a major banana company, as the possible cause for US to intervene.
The Commissioner, however, added that the EU will look into the matter and take appropriate steps. Chiquita, based in Cincinnati in the US, could not be contacted for their immediate reaction but it had said in its annual report last year that the tariff added USD 75 million in net costs in 2006.
European banana sector sources told New Europe that other US exporters, including Del Monte and Dole, are also affected, adding that the European Commissioner has her facts correct that no bananas are grown in the US, but in the trade circle of today’s era of globalisation everyone is aware of the large farming interests of these leading world exporters globally, especially in the Latin American region.
The US statement pointed out that WTO ruling had said “the EU’s regime discriminates against bananas originating in Latin American countries and against distributors of such bananas, including several US companies,” adding “The EU was under an obligation to bring its banana regime into compliance with its WTO obligations by January 1999.”
The EU’s tariff-only banana policy took effect in 2006, after a nearly five-year transition from a license-and-quota system that the US and Latin American producers had fought since its introduction in 1993.
The WTO ruled against the old system in 1997 and upheld US sanctions of European goods in 1999.During negotiating for a single tariff system to modify its complex web of duties and quotas for imports, the European Commission had suggested EU duties of 230 Euro and then scaling them down to 187 Euro, but WTO panels had rejected the proposals arguing that those were discriminatory against Latin American (Latam) nations.
Out of that deadlock emerged the figure of 176 Euro, but the conflict simmered on.Even after the introduction of the new EU single tariff system, there was widespread dissatisfaction, and Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere got into the driver’s seat to find a political solution based on a thorough monitoring of the EU banana imports and various price systems in force.
But, after waiting nearly for a year, Ecuador decided to go ahead with the WTO route culminating in a victory late last year. On November 23, 2006 Ecuador was joined by Colombia as a third party. Panama and the US followed and more countries are set to join in the fray according to sector insiders.
The EU’s current banana import policy significantly differentiates access treatment as a tariff-quota volume of 775,000 tonnes is exclusively reserved for bananas of ACP origin. ACP bananas within the quota enter duty-free (i.e., at a 176 Euro/tonne margin of preference), with unlimited ACP over-quota access authorised at a tariff of 176 Euro/tonne.
On the other hand, an “autonomous” tariff of 176 Euro/tonne (a rate more than double the previously-applicable rate of 75 Euro/tonne) applies to all other bananas.Bananas are the most important agricultural product in Ecuador, and its exports account for 25 percent of all Ecuador’s agricultural exports. Some 22 percent of all banana output is aimed for the European Union market but this share to EU 27 today is down by 3.3 percent.
On the other hand, in Europe it is a “sensitive” commodity and there is a protection regime for the sector.While bananas grown within the bloc have shrunk to only 11 percent of the total EU supply, highly-subsidised production is important to the Spain’s Canary Islands, the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe and Portugal’s Madeira and Azores islands.In 2007, Europeans ate some 4.9 million tonnes of bananas, making the bloc the world’s biggest banana market but consumption per capita remains two kilogrammes below the average consumed in the US.
Over two-thirds of the fruits consumed come from Latin America, earning a total of approximately 637 million Euro in tariffs for EU coffers and a further “duty-free” 16.3 percent from Africa and Caribbean countries.
It’s interesting to note that only on Colombian bananas is there a taxation of 200 million Euro, and social pundits along with market observers agreed that this money could be utilised to aid rural communities, such as Colombia, where former presidential candidate and Colombian-French citizen Ingrid Betancourt is kept as a hostage.
Bananas are set to be prominent in the upcoming finalisation of Association Agreements with Central American and Andean countries while appearing on the radar of WTO Development Round but according to reliable WTO sources in Geneva, the latest leaked ruling can be appealed against by the European Union only when these are finalised and published.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Afghanistan likens itself to US Mexican border woes
Need personnel, modern equipment, neighbours’ help
More than seven years since the ouster of the Taliban, Afghanistan is suffering its worst spell of violence in recent years with hundreds of foreign troops and thousands of civilians killed in what is termed a resurgence of the Taliban.
As the population reels under severe weather conditions, economic hardships and the ever-present threat of terrorist attacks, there is an urgent need to build and supplement Afghan defence forces.
Afghan Defence Ministry spokesman General Mohammad Zahir Azimi on February14 reiterated the need for a stronger and well-equipped Afghan defence system arguing that it’s even cheaper to sustain than the foreign troops in the country.
Addressing Brussels-based journalists through a satellite link, General Azimi said, “Afghan National Army is a confident defensive institution with more than 60,000 personnel who have been able to get the confidence of international community and people of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan Army has led some important operations such as Maiwand, operation Khybar and recently the operation in Musa Qala.” Advocating that increasing the size of the Afghan National Army is much cheaper than paying for thousands of NATO and US troops, currently deployed in Afghanistan General said, “From an economical point of view, expenses of Afghanistan Army is much lower. It means expenses of one foreign soldier could be the equivalent for 60 to 100 Afghan National Army soldiers.”
Outlining the three main challenges facing the army today, the General said, “First, the number of Afghan National Army which is agreed for 86,000 troops should be increased in case of necessity.
Second: Lack of heavy weapons like tanks which can increase the morale of troops.
Third: Lack of airpower which can perform logistic, transport, air strikes and reconnaissance activity.”
On the question of recruitment of youth in the national army vis-a-vis the terrorist organisations like the Taliban, General Azimi said, “I can tell you that Afghan youth are interested to be in Afghanistan Army and economical aspect of this army is not important for our youth.”
“The thing which is important for them is that they are interested to defend their country. They are interested to defend democracy and they are interested to defend their national values. For instance, in March 2007 it was decided to increase the number of National Army by two times by the end of 2007. During the eight months we have been able to complete the number of our Afghan National Army. It means that we have been able to attract Afghan youth to Afghan National Army.”
On the subject of the present winter lull in the terrorist activities and projected situation in upcoming Spring, General said, “We don’t expect that upcoming spring or the spring of 2008 to be harder than the spring of 2007 because when we started spring of 2007, we had around 30,000 troops ... we didn’t have advanced equipment in the beginning of 2007.”
“But now by the beginning of 2008 or by the beginning of the spring of 2008, we will have around 70,000 troops, we will have advanced equipment; we will have M16 weapons, we will have M4... we don’t expect that this spring will be harder and we are not concerned at all about upcoming spring.”
Commenting on the urgent needs to monitor the Afghan border, General said, “I think Afghanistan’s border needs four important points. First of all, we need a strong border force for our border. For example, we have more than 5,600-kilometre border with different countries and the number which is determined for Afghan National Border Police is just 12,000. So 6,000 or 7,000 of them could be busy in headquarter services. We will just have 5,000 or 6,000 troops. So they won’t be able to protect all the borders because there is more than 5,600 kilometres.”
“The second thing is about technology. We should have advanced technology in order to monitor our border areas. So we need night-glasses. We need the equipment that could be used by our border police in order to monitor it.”
“The third point is the collaboration of people. Potentially, people are ready to help government in order to monitor the border.”
“The fourth point or element is the honest collaboration between two countries. So the two countries, those of the border between each other, they should honestly collaborate or co-operate with each other in order to make sure the security or the control of the border.”
Asked to comment on the question of whether Afghanistan had any plans to close the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, General Azimi said, “From a geographical point of view, there are a lot of terrain which are very difficult to pass or it means Afghanistan a mountainous country.”
Pointing to inability of even the US to close borders, the Afghan General said, “The complete closing of the border is impossible because when we see to the United States, United States is a powerful country, even they cannot shut or they cannot close their border with Mexico.”
The General expressed optimism, saying, “Yesterday Afghanistan was a centre of terrorism that was threatening the world. Today it is the centre of struggle against terrorism with having elected government, parliament, constitution, press freedom and more than six million of our children are going to school and women are struggling beside the men.”
More than seven years since the ouster of the Taliban, Afghanistan is suffering its worst spell of violence in recent years with hundreds of foreign troops and thousands of civilians killed in what is termed a resurgence of the Taliban.
As the population reels under severe weather conditions, economic hardships and the ever-present threat of terrorist attacks, there is an urgent need to build and supplement Afghan defence forces.
Afghan Defence Ministry spokesman General Mohammad Zahir Azimi on February14 reiterated the need for a stronger and well-equipped Afghan defence system arguing that it’s even cheaper to sustain than the foreign troops in the country.
Addressing Brussels-based journalists through a satellite link, General Azimi said, “Afghan National Army is a confident defensive institution with more than 60,000 personnel who have been able to get the confidence of international community and people of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan Army has led some important operations such as Maiwand, operation Khybar and recently the operation in Musa Qala.” Advocating that increasing the size of the Afghan National Army is much cheaper than paying for thousands of NATO and US troops, currently deployed in Afghanistan General said, “From an economical point of view, expenses of Afghanistan Army is much lower. It means expenses of one foreign soldier could be the equivalent for 60 to 100 Afghan National Army soldiers.”
Outlining the three main challenges facing the army today, the General said, “First, the number of Afghan National Army which is agreed for 86,000 troops should be increased in case of necessity.
Second: Lack of heavy weapons like tanks which can increase the morale of troops.
Third: Lack of airpower which can perform logistic, transport, air strikes and reconnaissance activity.”
On the question of recruitment of youth in the national army vis-a-vis the terrorist organisations like the Taliban, General Azimi said, “I can tell you that Afghan youth are interested to be in Afghanistan Army and economical aspect of this army is not important for our youth.”
“The thing which is important for them is that they are interested to defend their country. They are interested to defend democracy and they are interested to defend their national values. For instance, in March 2007 it was decided to increase the number of National Army by two times by the end of 2007. During the eight months we have been able to complete the number of our Afghan National Army. It means that we have been able to attract Afghan youth to Afghan National Army.”
On the subject of the present winter lull in the terrorist activities and projected situation in upcoming Spring, General said, “We don’t expect that upcoming spring or the spring of 2008 to be harder than the spring of 2007 because when we started spring of 2007, we had around 30,000 troops ... we didn’t have advanced equipment in the beginning of 2007.”
“But now by the beginning of 2008 or by the beginning of the spring of 2008, we will have around 70,000 troops, we will have advanced equipment; we will have M16 weapons, we will have M4... we don’t expect that this spring will be harder and we are not concerned at all about upcoming spring.”
Commenting on the urgent needs to monitor the Afghan border, General said, “I think Afghanistan’s border needs four important points. First of all, we need a strong border force for our border. For example, we have more than 5,600-kilometre border with different countries and the number which is determined for Afghan National Border Police is just 12,000. So 6,000 or 7,000 of them could be busy in headquarter services. We will just have 5,000 or 6,000 troops. So they won’t be able to protect all the borders because there is more than 5,600 kilometres.”
“The second thing is about technology. We should have advanced technology in order to monitor our border areas. So we need night-glasses. We need the equipment that could be used by our border police in order to monitor it.”
“The third point is the collaboration of people. Potentially, people are ready to help government in order to monitor the border.”
“The fourth point or element is the honest collaboration between two countries. So the two countries, those of the border between each other, they should honestly collaborate or co-operate with each other in order to make sure the security or the control of the border.”
Asked to comment on the question of whether Afghanistan had any plans to close the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, General Azimi said, “From a geographical point of view, there are a lot of terrain which are very difficult to pass or it means Afghanistan a mountainous country.”
Pointing to inability of even the US to close borders, the Afghan General said, “The complete closing of the border is impossible because when we see to the United States, United States is a powerful country, even they cannot shut or they cannot close their border with Mexico.”
The General expressed optimism, saying, “Yesterday Afghanistan was a centre of terrorism that was threatening the world. Today it is the centre of struggle against terrorism with having elected government, parliament, constitution, press freedom and more than six million of our children are going to school and women are struggling beside the men.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
