The results of the World Trade Organization ministerial in Seattle are
disappointing. (Note the terrific understatement here.) Listening to the statements from trade ministers around the world, many expressing frustration, some speaking defiantly and a few who seem downright angry, we can
understand their reactions. The ministers faced complex issues, discussion was operationally difficult to facilitate, and the atmosphere in Seattle was, shall we say, distracting. Maybe it shouldn't surprise us that the
WTO could not finalize the next millenni-um's agenda for trade.Trade talks will resume, and in the meantime, U.S. agriculture has a lot of work ahead to explain our trade issue positions. It is also quite clear
that we have to do a lot of listening, too. But while agricultural issues were difficult to negotiate, they do not stand alone as a cause for failure. The developing countries are now much more of a factor in the
negotiations, both in terms of numbers and increased awareness. These countries want to share in the prosperity that comes from open markets and increased trade. They also make important points on what they need from
the global marketplace, and we ignore their needs and concerns at our peril.
The easiest way to doom further negotiations is to disregard the views of these governments and markets, as we saw from the reactions to
President Clinton's ill-timed statement supporting sanctions on labor standards in developing countries that are at various stages in structuring their economies and security.
Even more disappointing than the failure
of the WTO to arrive at an agenda for the next round of talks, however, is the reaction from organized labor. They are raring to go, buoyed from their self-perceived "success" as measured by the lack of an agreement on
an agenda. Labor leaders are telling anyone who listens that their next objective is to convince Congress to reject the U.S. - China agreement, to refuse to give the OK for normal trade relations. A congressional
failure on the China agreement could have serious and potentially immediate repercussions for U.S. wheat sales.
Under the agreement negotiated by U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, China has agreed to
accept more wheat under a tariff rate quota. If the U.S. could manage to get even 40% of those sales we would increase U.S. wheat exports by 10% every year. What China offers is available nowhere else in the world: a
major and continuing impact on U.S. wheat exports.
There's no way to sugar coat the gravity of this situation. We need China wheat sales, China has agreed to increase imports, and the unions want to block the deal.
But they won't be the only ones trying to cut the feet out from under agriculture: the China agreement will be under attack by extremists on both sides of the political spectrum.
You might think that agriculture would
become accustomed to taking the hits on foreign policy. The most recent examples:
First, we took a hit last fall when Congress refused to open Cuba's wheat market to U.S. agricultural producers (but they promised to
bring it up again this year).
Next, a number of the issues we were working on, like removing the trade-distorting monopoly powers of the State Trading Enterprises, cannot be accomplished without the WTO negotiations.
Granted, it would be a long time before those issues were finally resolved even if negotiations started tomorrow but, on the other hand, if the talks do not start up soon, we may see backsliding by other countries that
will soon hurt American agriculture. Count WTO as two hits.
And now, this spring, legislators will consider whether to deny U.S. wheat an increased market in China, a market that is waiting to open, now.
We've heard the battle cry from organized labor, environmentalists and protectionists on the China issue. Agriculture cannot take any more hits. We must give the China agreement our aggressive and unanimous support, and
ask Congress for the same.
