Bush Proposes Mid-East Free Trade Zone

[Sam Stone]

So, what do we all think of this?

Fresh Start on Mid-East Peace

To me, this sounds like a fantastic idea. It's good economics, it will be good for helping liberalize the region, and it's going to help make Iraq more stable.

From a geopolitical standpoint, it's also smart. It pulls the middle-east closer to America.

Comments?

[OliverH]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
So, what do we all think of this?

Fresh Start on Mid-East Peace

To me, this sounds like a fantastic idea. It's good economics, it will be good for helping liberalize the region, and it's going to help make Iraq more stable.

From a geopolitical standpoint, it's also smart. It pulls the middle-east closer to America.

Comments?

There's a problem with the idea. It's not Bush's idea, and it is unlikely to pull the Middle East closer to America. Why? Because the EU has been working with the Gulf Cooperation Council on such a development long before Bush was elected. While the GCC is not the entire middle east, it constitutes the strongest economies in the area. In fact, as a result of the negotiations, the GCC already introduced a customs union recently. A free trade area in the GCC is already being planned.

(Cf. http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_r...eration/intro/ and documents linked there)

So no, Bush didn't have a fantastic idea. He merely, as with his Iraq 'evidence' plagiarized from others.

[elucidator]

He did too have a fantastic idea! OK, it wasn't his fantastic idea! Still, its a pretty good idea!

[Brutus]

Originally posted by OliverH
...So no, Bush didn't have a fantastic idea. He merely, as with his Iraq 'evidence' plagiarized from others.

No mention is made of a EU-proposed 'free-trade zone' in your cite. Sure, there is some mention of some trade between the EU and GCC, but that is hardly the same thing as what GW is proposing. But feel free to try again!

[OliverH]

Originally posted by Brutus
No mention is made of a EU-proposed 'free-trade zone' in your cite. Sure, there is some mention of some trade between the EU and GCC, but that is hardly the same thing as what GW is proposing. But feel free to try again!

Nice try, Brutus. And what is

The 1989 Cooperation Agreement also contains a commitment from both sides to enter into negociations on a Free Trade Agreement between the EC and the GCC.

´?


I also referred to that website and those linked from there. If you had bothered to look around, you would have found plenty of mention of a free trade zone, for example in the very prominently linked PDF protocol of the March conference in Doha.
e.g.

Opening of the European Commission Delegation in Riyadh
The GCC and the EU took note of ongoing contacts regarding the opening of the European Commission Delegation in Riyadh and noted with satisfaction that a GCC delegation will be having meetings in Brussels with EC officials within the next few weeks in order to further discuss this issue. The EU side noted that the establishment of the Commission Delegation would indeed enable an acceleration of ongoing Free Trade Area Negotiations .

Implementation of the Cooperation Agreement and Free Trade Agreement negotiations
The Joint Council received a report from the Joint Cooperation Committee held in Brussels on 28 January 2003 and reiterated its view that trade, investment and cooperation constituted the foundations on which to develop and improve EU-GCC economic relations. The Joint Council noted with satisfaction progress achieved in the implementation of the cooperation agreement and in the negotiations of the free trade area . It welcomed the objective to focus cooperation on increasing dialogue and common understanding, in particular in economic matters. The Joint Council welcomed the agreement reached at the Joint Committee to continue the reflection in order to identify the best ways to move this shared objective forward. The Joint Council noted in particular the importance of intensifying cooperation in the field of energy through the energy experts' meeting and the ongoing cooperation for the promotion of hydrocarbon technology transfers. The Joint Council took note of ongoing work on investment and welcomed the recommendation of the Investment Working Group to promote reciprocal investments.
Regarding the free trade area negotiations , the Joint Council recalled that it had agreed in Granada in February 2002 to hold negotiation rounds at an intensive pace. It noted with
satisfaction that five negotiation rounds had taken place in the course of the year, over which good progress was achieved, in particular regarding regulatory elements. The Joint Council
noted that a new negotiating round is to take place on 4-5 March in Doha, just after the Joint Council meeting. It welcomed progress obtained so far and agreed that negotiations should
proceed steadily to its conclusion by removing obstacles not yet overcome and by covering all remaining sectors, including non-trade elements.

Emphasis mine

Nice try, Brutus. Really nice try.

Next time, actually try reading the references you are given.

[Brutus]

Bah. If it wasn't for you meddling kids...

[elucidator]

That's really not necessary, Oliver. A rolled-up newspaper works just as well. Watch!

<WHAP!> Bad Brutus! Bad! Go lay down by your water dish!

[Sam Stone]

I don't get you guys. I ask if the U.S.'s Free Trade plan for the middle east, and your response is, "It's not unique! The Europeans proposed it first! Nyah nyah!"

Who gives a rat's ass if anyone else is doing it? I wasn't trying to suggest that Bush's plan for a free trade zone was some sort of brilliant insight that made Bush an economic genius or anything, but that it a smart next step in American Middle-East policy.

If other countries are doing the same thing, good on them. Free trade is good for everyone. And don't forget that the U.S. already has free trade pacts with Israel and Jordan, and that this latest plan is being greeted with great enthusiasm in Egypt and other countries who have been asking for this.

[milroyj]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
I don't get you guys.

You forget: Bush = Bad to a lot of these guys.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Who gives a rat's ass if anyone else is doing it?

Not me. But that doesn't make Bush an economic genius. A broken clock is right twice a day, but only by accident. You'd think that if he understood the economics and the nature of trust building in small steps, then he'd come out with a plan to drop trade barriers with European states -- what with the whole shouting match over Iraq, not to mention N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan, yadda, yadda, yadda.

But that doesn't make it a bad idea. Since I studied economics, "dropping trade barriers is good" is my default position. It would be good in the Middle East, but I don't think it'll bring peace in and of itself. Scenario 1: The trade barriers go down, some dumb-ass Palestinian decides he wants to derail the peace process with a bombing, the Israelis react in the same way they always do, back to square one. Scenario 2: Barriers go down, Israelis bull-doze houses for more "settlement" construction & kill a couple people in the process, Palestinians react, back to square one.

You know how they said that "only Nixon could go to China"? I'm wondering if voting for Leiberman might not be the best thing we can do to solve the Middle East problem.

[Magiver]

Originally posted by OliverH
There's a problem with the idea. It's not Bush's idea, and it is unlikely to pull the Middle East closer to America. Why? Because the EU has been working with the Gulf Cooperation Council on such a development long before Bush was elected. While the GCC is not the entire middle east, it constitutes the strongest economies in the area. In fact, as a result of the negotiations, the GCC already introduced a customs union recently. A free trade area in the GCC is already being planned.

(Cf. http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_r...eration/intro/ and documents linked there)

So no, Bush didn't have a fantastic idea. He merely, as with his Iraq 'evidence' plagiarized from others.

Jeez Louise, OliverH, why don't you just sign all you posts "Die Bush Die”. Everything related to Bush is personal to you.

So someone else proposed the idea, BFD!

Your responses revolve around the fact that you don’t like the war in Iraq. It would have been nice if the UN had stepped up to the plate instead of the never ending inspections.

[elucidator]

Well, hell, yes, GeeDubya stepped up to the plate. And then he shot the umpire.

[milroyj]

Originally posted by elucidator
Genius is pain.

How would you know?

[elucidator]

Awww, gee, now I gotta cry myself to sleep again!

[milroyj]

It seems to be a regular occurrence with you, how do you possibly manage?

[elucidator]

I am nurtuted by the contempt of the contemptible. You know, they have a pit for this sort of thing, for those with the urge to insult but without the wit for debate. Check it out, all your friends are there and they're both in a good mood.

[Apos]

Now, if only he'd apply this philosophy to the steel industry...

[milroyj]

Isn't the proper use of sigs restricted to one per thread? I see five thus far. Why is that?

[Magiver]

Originally posted by elucidator
I am nurtuted by the contempt of the contemptible. You know, they have a pit for this sort of thing, for those with the urge to insult but without the wit for debate. Check it out, all your friends are there and they're both in a good mood.

So many witticisms, and so little time.

Enlighten us. What is bad about Bush’s move toward a Mid East free trade zone. I’m sure the President can break away from his hourly briefings to review your suggestions. Maybe you can catch Mz Rice at lunch and kick a few ideas around.

I’m confident you can solve all the world’s problems with just the right self-aggrandizing retort.

By the way, did you mean nurtured, or neutered?

Note to people with well-educated posteriors: use spell-check when trying to denigrate your fellow man.

[elucidator]

You do me too much credit, McGoober, but I'll try to be of help as you stumble towards enlightenment.

Point of fact, there is nothing wrong with offering "free trade" as an inducement for the Palestinians. But there's nothing much right about it either. It makes a good headline, makes a very statesmanlike show, but thats about it.

"Free trade" is pretty cool if you have something to sell. Tell me, what was the last thing you bought from Gaza? What do you think the next one will be?

The Palestinians have got d for diddly squat. They have no reason whatever to give a rats ass about free trade. They would be blubberingly grateful for half the largesse we pour every year into Israel. When pigs fly. We are Isreal's very best friend, whether they are ours as well is another question.

As Amos Oz pointed out, true tragedy occurs when both antagonists are right. GeeDubya's "free trade" offer has about as much impact as his much vaunted "roadmap". Its nice, its pleasant, its a band aid on a gangrenous wound. It offers the opportunity to appear deeply involved and concerned, with lots of nice overtones of leadership and best of all! it costs nothing.

It might be that the Palestinians and Arabs will view this as a major concession on our part, a shift in our pitiless adherence to Israel's hard liners. I rather doubt it. But if you can believe in Fearless Misleader's vision, you can probably believe in his statesmanship as well. It would be churlish to disrupt such an innocent faith.

[Tuckerfan]

Hey, elucidator, ya know what happens when the US declares an area to be a free trade zone? A lot of companies suddenly feel the need to move in and set up shop to do business there. So maybe the Palestinians aren't producing a whole lot now, but once they get declared a free trade zone you can bet that they'll soon have something to export.

[elucidator]

Perhaps I lack your depth of economic acumen, but that sounds suspiciously like a magic wand to me. "Free trade zone" and poof! economic prosperity. I should like a bit more substantiation, if you don't mind.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by elucidator
Perhaps I lack your depth of economic acumen, but that sounds suspiciously like a magic wand to me. "Free trade zone" and poof! economic prosperity. I should like a bit more substantiation, if you don't mind.

Never said anything about economic prosperity. No doubt the first (and quite possibly only) places to move in will be the sweatshops. Free trade doesn't equal economic prosperity. Fair Trade might, but I haven't seen enough evidence of that as of yet to say for certain.

[Sam Stone]

Free trade does many things. One of the things it does is prevent local businesses from being protected from market forces. This is good for the Arab world for two reasons - the first is that consumers in these countries get a break. They are free to buy the cheapest, best products they can find, whether they are made in the country or not. The second thing it does is force local businesses to learn to be competitive. And once they learn that, the economy starts to grow rapidly.

It is also liberalizing. You can't have free trade without mixing cultures to some degree, and having to deal with people in business forces barriers to come down somewhat. People of other cultures learn to deal with each other. This is a moderating effect.

It's telling that the response from the Middle East to this proposal has been overwhelmingly positive.

[elucidator]

By the by, I had no idea there was some sort of restriction as to the number of times one uses a sig. I am chastened that I have offended Millroyj's delicate sensibilities, and offer as much apology as is deserved.

But am I perhaps ungenerous? I should hate to think so. If the poor fellow has none of his own, why, he can have mine! I have others.

[elucidator]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
...It's telling that the response from the Middle East to this proposal has been overwhelmingly positive.

Sorry, Sam, but that screams for a cite.

[Magiver]

Originally posted by elucidator
You do me too much credit, McGoober, but I'll try to be of help as you stumble towards enlightenment.
--------------------------
Pained besmusement , as one being harangued by a Unitarian zealot.

.

No, I gave you all the credit you deserve. You still haven’t given us your solution to the problems of the world, just more nihilistic criticism.

Again, I'm impressed with your literary skills, even “bemused”.

[elucidator]

The problems of the world? All of them? Cheez Louise, guy, I never claimed to walk on water. I got no self-esteem problems, but Lord have mercy!

You seem to imply that one cannot criticize Fearless Misleader's plans unless one can offer an alternative. Ain't necessairly so. I see a man about to dangle his scrotum in a pool of piranha, I am obliged to yell "Stop that, you dumb shit!" I may recommend that he go bowling, or take up knitting, I may not. But first and foremost, he's got to cease and desist!

Heaven knows, I've got my faults, but "nihilism" isn't on the list. Its a long list, but that ain't on it.

[Magiver]

Originally posted by elucidator
The problems of the world? All of them? Cheez Louise, guy, I never claimed to walk on water. I got no self-esteem problems, but Lord have mercy!

You seem to imply that one cannot criticize Fearless Misleader's plans unless one can offer an alternative. Ain't necessairly so. I see a man about to dangle his scrotum in a pool of piranha, I am obliged to yell "Stop that, you dumb shit!" I may recommend that he go bowling, or take up knitting, I may not. But first and foremost, he's got to cease and desist!

Heaven knows, I've got my faults, but "nihilism" isn't on the list. Its a long list, but that ain't on it.

Just trying to get you off the bashing wagon. You sound like Rush Limbaugh after someone's rung the Pavlovian Clinton bell.

I've been watching the Mid East situation since the 70's and I would hate to be in the President's seat. Criticism is fine with me but it's usually easy to tell if someone likes or dislikes the President. I try not to use Clinton in a sentence because I’m not found of him. Although, he did seem to have a firm grasp of things when he was in the White House (sorry).

Now if you could get Dubya’s Scrotum over a pool of piranha, I would take the opportunity to teach him not to say “uh” after every sentence.

If we go back to the original question, I think a free trade zone is one brick in a foundation that will improve the whole situation. Establishing a Palestinian State won't mean anything if they don't have jobs. A free trade zone is just one of the ways that work toward that goal.

[milroyj]

Originally posted by elucidator
By the by, I had no idea there was some sort of restriction as to the number of times one uses a sig. I am chastened that I have offended Millroyj's delicate sensibilities, and offer as much apology as is deserved.

But am I perhaps ungenerous? I should hate to think so. If the poor fellow has none of his own, why, he can have mine! I have others.

It happens to be a message board rule, actually. Only one sig per thread. Of course, you being here for three years and 4000 posts should know that. Unless you are deliberately flaunting the rules, which I imagine is the case.

[futureman]

Sam,

I will talk about the idea, like you said.

I am a little ambivalent on the subject. If it would bring peace to the middle east, then I would be all for it, but I am not so sure that it would work. Take a look at Nafta. Sure, Mexico seems a little better off, but you have to realize that a free trade zone doesn't work without other things. The idea is to take labor capital and production and markets and orgainize them internationally. But when you don't allow labor to flow freely along with the other things (eg. have people be able to move freely as in Europe) then I don't see it working.

Picture Mexico. Thousands of Mexicans try to enter the us every single day. There are maquilladoras, factories on the border that hire Mexicans for very cheap and have very poor working conditions. The inputs are shipped in from the US free of charge, and constructed in Mexico, then shipped out. Of all of the foreign income in NAFTA only 6 percent stays in Mexico (no cite, I heard this in a class). In the end, the differences in labor laws don't help. The people are exploited. So in that case, I don't see the Mid-East becoming an economic powerhouse anytime soon. This is of course classic neoliberalism. But, when did neoliberal economic policies ever create a success? Argentina? but that, of course failed.

However, in the end, I would say that a free-trade zone could possibly help. I don't know so much about the one that they are planning. I know Bush has a smart economist that he just hired. Blinder's his name. However in the Mid-east, it wouldn't be so possible for the israelis to exploit everyone else like the US does mexico, because of the relative sizes of the economies. I never said that neoliberal policies can't work, they just haven't yet, and this could prove it wrong.

Trade has created an incentive for unity in the past. Post-war Europe is a spetacular example. The European Coal and Steel Community was the beggining of the EU. The cooperation was pushed by the US to keep Europe unified. The question is who will it benefit to have peace? Will it be only the richest of the rich, or will it also help the poorer folks?

In all, I am a little ambivalant about the prospect at first, because I know that free-trade dominated by the US won't really help so much. I don't believe that this kind of comsumption that we are into nowadays is good, and I think that much of our society is deteriorating because of it, but that is a different matter. If the Iraqis, Syrians, Israelis, Jordans, and whoever else can learn to be happy by buying gadgets and watching TV, its better than them killing themselves and us. The question is: would they fall for it?

[elucidator]

Originally posted by milroyj
It happens to be a message board rule, actually. Only one sig per thread. Of course, you being here for three years and 4000 posts should know that. Unless you are deliberately flaunting the rules, which I imagine is the case.

I think the word you're groping for is "flout", meaning to aggressively disobey. You're welcome. Always glad to help.

As to this rule, I can find no reference to it, and you are, so far as I recall, the only person to mention it to me. This may be due to cringing fear of my wrath and scathing wit, or perhaps because no one else realized how crucial and vitally important it is.

No one but you, that is.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
So, what do we all think of this?

Fresh Start on Mid-East Peace

To me, this sounds like a fantastic idea. It's good economics, it will be good for helping liberalize the region, and it's going to help make Iraq more stable.

From a geopolitical standpoint, it's also smart. It pulls the middle-east closer to America.

Comments?

Declaring oneself for World Peace is also a fantastic idea, however to be a truly fantastic idea, it needs, IMO, to be practical.

given political conditions both in the US and Europe, and abstracting entirely away from the serious problems in the region, there is no way this is anything more than a fine little pie in the sky make the Journos happy deal.

Dead letter.

(Never mind pushiung the next Doha round is far better)

[elucidator]

Cheesemeister

"Journos happy deal"? "Doha round"? Wha? Huh? Duh?

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Tuckerfan
Never said anything about economic prosperity. No doubt the first (and quite possibly only) places to move in will be the sweatshops. Free trade doesn't equal economic prosperity. Fair Trade might, but I haven't seen enough evidence of that as of yet to say for certain.

Fair Trade is a meaningless little phrase bandied about by people who understand neither trade nor economics.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by elucidator
Cheesemeister

"Journos happy deal"? "Doha round"? Wha? Huh? Duh?

Doha round is the current WTO negotiations, upcoming session shortly. SHould be dealing with agricultural and TRIPS issues as I recall. However, how it will go depends on whether London / Paris Club tensions can be resolved. There is an enormous amount of bad will out there now, partly connected with Iraq, partly with US scofflaw attitude towards neg. WTO decision in re tax etc.

However it appears the Bush Admin is once again taking the position it don't need multilaterals, that bilateral one offs are better. Never mind bilaterals are economically less efficient and trade distorting.

[elucidator]

And "Journos happy deal"? Is that, like, at McDonalds and you get a toy with it?

[Collounsbury]

Missed this, should go to the substance:

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Free trade does many things. One of the things it does is prevent local businesses from being protected from market forces. This is good for the Arab world for two reasons - the first is that consumers in these countries get a break. They are free to buy the cheapest, best products they can find, whether they are made in the country or not. The second thing it does is force local businesses to learn to be competitive. And once they learn that, the economy starts to grow rapidly.

All well and good, however things ain't quite that straight forward.

Primo: capacity to react to competition in the near term is limited in most Arab economies, although trade barriers are already coming down in most, exceptions being Syria, Libya, Algeria and to an extent Egypt. It's all well and fine for the theorist to abstract away from the difficult transition period, but reality is another matter. Given the fragility of most regimes in the area and the limited resource bases, both human and natural, one is looking at some very difficult transitions. Of course, that is not a reason not to try, but 'free trade' is not magic wand, it is a tool. A tool that in political areas might result in 'secular' regimes falling into the hands of Islamists. I personally think that would not be such a disaster, but security issues run into economic ones.

Secondu: it is a bit of hand waving to jump from 'learning to be competitive' to growing rapidly. Learning to be competitive is a process, which I can tell you from direct, hands on experience, is time consuming given the lack of flexibility in socio-economic structures here, above all when it seems imposed. Further to that, the trade agreements have to cover what the countries in question can actually compete on. Being moderately familiar with them, I can say that they do not. E.g. the Jordan FTA does not have terribly good concessions on textiles, and does not cover agri all that well either. Better than the EU Med Basin initiative 'Association Pact' agreement, but still not good. Jordan has a slight advantage insofar as it also has the QIZ (Qualifying Industrial Zones) agreement that allows value added work off of Israeli materials. Israel got a sweet deal on its FTA (gee, is that surprising? Political oomph to get through the protectionist morons in the Senate.), and Jordanian value adds can get through duty free with around 8% Israeli value add.

The problem with all this, besides the fact that the carve outs hit the developing countries in precisely the places where they are likely to be most competitive is that they are narrow and bilateral. Trade diverting. It would make infinately more sense to press on the Doha round to make general trade barriers come down then to get bogged down in numerous bilaterals or mini-laterals. Having followed the interminable Egypto-American neg. over neg. an FTA I can say that regional consciousness on this is pretty piss poor.

It is also liberalizing. You can't have free trade without mixing cultures to some degree, and having to deal with people in business forces barriers to come down somewhat. People of other cultures learn to deal with each other. This is a moderating effect.

Bother, pie in the sky. Other issues trump this easily. The QIZ and FTA items btw Jordan and Israel helped when politics was going well 97-2000, have gone away since. Economics will not trump politics, it can help lever change but will not trump the emotional issues.

Even now coming into Jordan to look at deals I get idjits who want to know if we have Israeli money (don't actually) and if so, they don't want it. I tell them to fuck off, if they want our financing they can fucking suck it up, if not take a hike. But regardless, it is illustrative that there are strong feelings that trump the economics.

It's telling that the response from the Middle East to this proposal has been overwhelmingly positive.

I'm sure it has, but it is not at all telling if you know the history here. Medh, medh, medh.

It would be nice to get some deals done -- Morocco's is said to be close to closing, but it's been close for a few months -- but I have no illusions that a regional trade pact can be reached nor that it will leverage political change. Seen enough of this crap over the past ten years to know better.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by elucidator
And "Journos happy deal"? Is that, like, at McDonalds and you get a toy with it?

A "Policy Initiative" to get the journalists all happy and lathered up. Journo = journalist. I think it's enlgish slang I picke d up.

[Collounsbury]

BTW, I should note that I do not want to slam Bush per se, for advancing the idea, it is simply that from my experience it is not a realistic nor effective means to pursue an otherwise worthy policy goal, and further that we need to pay attention to the interplay of socio-economic structures and other policies here. Transition in the region is not going to be easy, that I can assure you of. (If you look back to my thread on the Iraq War you'll note in the begin. some comments on Egypt and its policy illnesses.)

[capacitor]

Sorry, I thought he wanted a 'Tree fade' zone.

[asterion]

Originally posted by Magiver
Jeez Louise, OliverH, why don't you just sign all you posts "Die Bush Die”. Everything related to Bush is personal to you.

That's not "Die Bush Die." It's German for "The Bush The."

[elucidator]

Well, anybody who speaks German can't be all bad!

[sailor]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
To me, this sounds like a fantastic idea. It's good economics, it will be good for helping liberalize the region, and it's going to help make Iraq more stable. From a geopolitical standpoint, it's also smart. It pulls the middle-east closer to America.

Comments?

Free Trade is a good thing in any case and anything which moves in that direction is a good thing but that is not the comment I want to make here.

Some people are accused of finding fault in whatever the president does. I am looking at the other side: Those who said anything the EU did to favor the Palestinians was aiding terrorists and such and now when the USA does it it is a good thing which will lead to peace. Or are we going to see december condemning the USA for aiding the Palestinian terrorists?

[Ogre]

Well, hell, yes, GeeDubya stepped up to the plate. And then he shot the umpire.

No, he fired the umpire, because the umpire was fucking blind.

And hell yes, if the Middle East is transformed into a pan-EC/US/ME Free Trade Zone, regardless of who came up with the idea, that'll be one hell of a day's work. I'm all for it.

[elucidator]

But will it be useful as a preserve for Invisible Pink Unicorns to frolic?

[OliverH]

Originally posted by Magiver
Jeez Louise, OliverH, why don't you just sign all you posts "Die Bush Die”. Everything related to Bush is personal to you.

So someone else proposed the idea, BFD!

Your responses revolve around the fact that you don’t like the war in Iraq. It would have been nice if the UN had stepped up to the plate instead of the never ending inspections.

It would have been nice if you would present actual arguments rather than insults that demonstrate you neither understand the cite I presented nor the role of the UN.

So, once more, for people who take a bit longer:

The EU did not just PROPOSE a free trade zone. It WORKED towards one for almost 15 years. The introduction of a customs union at the beginning of this year was one result of those negotiations. As was the introduction of a round table for human rights. The EU, obviously, is working on a free trade area of the GCC with the EU. As such, Bush's 'great idea' is nothing more than another effort to curb european influence in the Middle East, since a free trade area with the US would obviously not include the EU. It isn't an idea to bring peace and prosperity to the region. If he thought a free trade area could achieve that, he could have simply supported the european negotiations which are already well underway, and suggested they be expanded to other nations. But introducing a free trade area in the middle east is obviously NOT his primary goal. The primary goal is that it is a free trade area WITH THE US. Given that the EU has far more trade with the region, the reasons for Bush's suggestion are pretty obvious.

As for the UN stepping up to the plate, it did. It is not the role of the UN to cater to the interest of individual members. It is most importantly not its role to crawl up the posterior of the American president. It is its role to find a consensus between nations. Period. If the inspections were 'never ending', then the US is chief to blame for that due to its inundating the inspectors with false evidence.

No, I don't call for Bush to die. I just call for people who are glad to be part of mindless cheering masses praising every word from his lips to start using the brain they were equipped with.

[Collounsbury]

You know Oliver, you begin to annoy me, but let me seek clarity:

Originally posted by OliverH
The EU did not just PROPOSE a free trade zone. It WORKED towards one for almost 15 years.

Could you clarify this, do you refer to the EU Med Basin initiative?

As such, Bush's 'great idea' is nothing more than another effort to curb european influence in the Middle East, since a free trade area with the US would obviously not include the EU.

Nor do any of the EU initiatives include the US. further I might add, the EU Med Basin accords are riddled with disadvantageous clauses for the 'Southern Rim' fellows. Although fewer, and in many ways flawed, the US FTA's are rather more advantageous in key areas.

It isn't an idea to bring peace and prosperity to the region. If he thought a free trade area could achieve that, he could have simply supported the european negotiations which are already well underway, and suggested they be expanded to other nations.

No, that would have been incredibly stupid, and there are good reasons for no US Administration to try to piggy back on the EU Med Basin initiatives, riddled as they are with carve outs.

Supporting an aggressive position in the upcoming Doha round meetings on agriculture and other areas adv. to developing countries would be the best, second best might be to propose w/ EU some other mechanism, third to begin an overall framework for the region, fourth a set of bilaterals (FTAs) with the regional countries, fourth take part in the EU's process.

But introducing a free trade area in the middle east is obviously NOT his primary goal. The primary goal is that it is a free trade area WITH THE US. Given that the EU has far more trade with the region, the reasons for Bush's suggestion are pretty obvious.

THis is simply whinging on, frankly it would be good for them to diversify their exports, being captive to EU markets is not helpful. Further of course, EU resistance to bringing down key barriers is stronger even than the US -- of course both are rather hypocritical insofar as we have forced TRIPS and other concessions w/o making signific. concessions on light mfg and agriculture, areas where these guys might compete.

[OliverH]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
Could you clarify this, do you refer to the EU Med Basin initiative?

I believe that I provided sufficient material to clarify this issue in this thread. The cites I provided are pretty unambiguous.

Nor do any of the EU initiatives include the US. further I might add, the EU Med Basin accords are riddled with disadvantageous clauses for the 'Southern Rim' fellows. Although fewer, and in many ways flawed, the US FTA's are rather more advantageous in key areas.

Irrelevant to the case in point.

No, that would have been incredibly stupid, and there are good reasons for no US Administration to try to piggy back on the EU Med Basin initiatives, riddled as they are with carve outs.

See above.

THis is simply whinging on, frankly it would be good for them to diversify their exports, being captive to EU markets is not helpful. Further of course, EU resistance to bringing down key barriers is stronger even than the US -- of course both are rather hypocritical insofar as we have forced TRIPS and other concessions w/o making signific. concessions on light mfg and agriculture, areas where these guys might compete.

It is simply demonstrating that the main goal of Bush in pursuing a free trade area in the Middle East is not peace and stability, but rather to gain more access to the markets there.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by OliverH I believe that I provided sufficient material to clarify this issue in this thread. The cites I provided are pretty unambiguous.

Well, guess what, I am not of the same opinion my fine Oliver, so what does your bloody statement actually refer to above? The GCC issue, Med Basin, both? Some degree of clarity is all that was asked. It should not be so very troublesome for you to clarify to which you were addressing your comments.

Irrelevant to the case in point.

Which case in point? The overall issue of a regional trade initiative for the Middle East, the GCC boy you seem to be touting, what? Certainly for the issue of overall trade policy, the content and character of the EU agreements with the Med Basin countrie is important.

It is simply demonstrating that the main goal of Bush in pursuing a free trade area in the Middle East is not peace and stability, but rather to gain more access to the markets there.

This is mere blather. I could assert, inter alia, the same bloody thing about the EU accords.

Instead of playing content free dodge-ball, let's roll up the sleeves and ask ourselves where the content is -- simply asserting Bush is out for more markets -- an absurd assertion when one looks at the buying power of the region ex Gulf (and in general even in the Gulf the size of the market is not big) -- does not cut it.