Editorial Leader, The West Australian, 7 Dec 1999
[Monopoly daily paper of Perth (pop 1 million), capital of a vast state (pop 1.7 million)]
Farmers shouldn't abandon hope
Australian farmers have every right to be disappointed and angry at the collapse of World Trade Organisation talks in Seattle.
The failure of the WTO threatens to cost Australian exporters many millions of dollars a year in new trade. It leaves Australian farmers at a continued disadvantage in competing with their European and American counterparts who enjoy fat subsidies.
But they should not despair at this setback. And they should not seek a return to the protectionist policies of the past.
Australia has argued long and hard in international forums for agricultural trade reforms and must continue to do so. With the Cairns group of like-minded agricultural exporters, Australia has made progress.
After all, the move for agricultural trade reform - which was aimed at clearing the way for a new round of cuts in tariffs and other protection - failed by only a narrow margin at the WTO meeting. And its failure can be attributed to a range of factors that have nothing to do with the principles of free trade.
Part of the problem is the 135-nation WTO itself. It was revealed at this meeting to be unwieldy and badly organised. Its director-general, Mike Moore, has conceded that it has a "deep institutional problem". He has promised internal reforms that would make all member nations active participants.
He should make sure the necessary improvements are made before the talks shift to Geneva next year.
Developing nations stopped any agreement. They were upset about what they considered to be a lack of transparency in the WTO, inadequate consultation and a drift of the talks away from their main interest in getting access to the markets of rich countries.
US President Bill Clinton also alienated such nations by his shameless domestic politicking in the run-up to the presidential election. He caused disquiet among their delegates when he promised American union leaders that he would push for new labour standards in trade agreements.
Mr Clinton's promise was obviously aimed at appeasing American workers who fear that easing of restrictions could lead to cheaper imports and threaten their jobs. There are great dangers in artificially linking trade agreements to labour standards, which are issues best kept separate.
Australians had no cause for surprise at Mr Clinton's perfidy in using the rhetoric of free trade while undercutting its achievement for base political motives. It is only a few months since the US introduced a new lamb quota and tariff system which flew in the face of the administration's protestations of support for free trade and severely penalised Australian producers. It is clear that this US administration cannot be trusted on trade issues.
The big demonstrations that accompanied and disrupted the WTO meeting probably had little effect on the results of its deliberations, beyond provoking Mr Clinton to make his ill-advised comments. But they drew attention to a big body of international opinion against what has become known as globalisation.
Eased trade restrictions will not result in environmental disasters or domination by multinationals. They will result in a fairer international market which will benefit Australia.
We should be working now for success at the Geneva talks.
Go to a critical reply to this editorial