Editorial
A fresh call for equitable trade regime
Pitfalls of Cancun must be avoided
The agreement reached in Dhaka among the trade ministers and experts from 37 countries that equitable global trade regime is the key point in bridging the rich-poor gap marks a melting of the ice prior to the next round of talks in February. Though the superpower United States was not among the participants in the two day long high profile brainstorming discussions, it nevertheless shows a slight shift from where the developed country had been standing firmly on. But such a softening of attitude will be of little avail unless translated into tangible benefits in terms of poverty reduction and fair deal to the producers. We agree that trade itself is not the only instrument in reducing poverty; if the trade benefits are not equally shared among rich and poor countries, poverty is likely to remain endemic. The other concern is the challenges faced by multilateralism. Especially after the Cancun WTO debacle, there has been a spate of trade pacts, both bilateral and regional. This is a step forward, undoubtedly, but at the same time one has to watch and see whether they fall in line with multilateralism, envisaging an equitable trade scenario. In the essence, the WTO and the governments must ensure that common people become the ultimate beneficiary of the multilateral trading system. One of the main targets for establishing trade equity would be to ensure fair deal to the peasants and workers in the developing countries. The observation by Pascal Lamy, Trade Commissioner of EC on effective implementation of Safta should go down well in the region. Indeed, if Safta is implemented, then the region would become a market of 1.4 billion people, bringing huge prospect of foreign investment with it. And naturally Bangladesh would be one of the major beneficiaries in that situation. The framework is ready after volumes of discussions on what to do and what not to do. Now is the right time to act and that also apolitically. We join some of the experts in saying that politicisation of world trade policies can only prove counter-productive.
|
|
