Let Us Organize World Trade

There is broad historic agreement that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been one the most successful international institutions; its membership accounts for more than 98 percent of world trade. However, today’s global economic landscape is changing rapidly, coupled with retrenchment and distancing from multilateral agreements. Combined, these factors impact the discernible value and role of the WTO going forward.

Changed Patterns of Trade and Investment

The expansion and development of IT infrastructure, telecommunications, and computing made the global revolution of the last few decades possible. New technologies, nonexistent when the WTO was established in 1995, have become crucial for growth and development in this decade. The outsourcing revolution has affected the developing world in a major way: global manufacturing and new services have dramatically changed supply chains; corporate espionage and intellectual property infringements supported many corporate changes in developing countries; and WTO negotiations and augmented enforcement procedures have not been able to slow that trend.

Moreover, one of the most critical issues in global trade is the aspect of unprecedented imbalances. Today, China is the new top global merchandise exporter with a total of $2.263 trillion, or 16.25 percent of world exports, according to WTO reports. It is the largest global exporter of goods, 17 percent of world exports, and the third largest importer, 12 percent of global imports.

The United States is the main goods importer with 13.4 percent of the global imports, totaling $2.4 trillion. In 1994, the United States was running an annual merchandise trade deficit of about $120 billion; by 2017, the U.S. annual trade deficit with China alone has ballooned to over $375 billion.

Stalemate at the WTO: Too Big to Be Effective?

The last successful WTO negotiation — the Uruguay Round — was a result of a strengthened, single market in Europe, the creation of NAFTA, and several plurilateral agreements, such as the Information Technology Agreement (ITA).

The Doha Round of negotiations, beginning in November 2001, aimed to achieve major reforms in the international trading system, with an explicit focus on developing nations. Nevertheless, this premise failed; disagreements concerning the agricultural sector, free trade of services, and intellectual property rights have stalled negotiations.

Twenty years ago, the principal WTO concerns were pollution, global warming, disease, and structural unemployment — none of these agenda items, arguably, have been addressed effectively, much less solved.

Size is also an issue. The WTO is comprised of 164 members, with widely diverse perspectives, levels of development, linkages, and ambitions. The WTO system has become unwieldy because of the unanimity requirement of its voting process. The result: progress with new agreements is at a standstill. Case in point is the reduction of trade tariffs, which, at a global 3 percent of Most Favored Nations status, is at the same level as in 2000.

China: A “Rule Shaker” or a “Rule Maker”?

The West’s open invitation for China to join the WTO in 2001 paved the way for its rise to a global economic power. Since then, the balance of power at the WTO has changed dramatically. Chinese outward investment in the global economy has increased thirtyfold, from $7 billion (making up only one percent of the global FDI) to almost $200 billion (13 percent of the global FDI).

China entered the WTO as a “rule taker,” evolved into a “rule shaker,” and now aims to become a “rule maker.”

In fact, economic relations between China, the United States, and the EU define many of the agreements and disputes at the WTO. Xi Jinping’s “China Dream” of national rejuvenation could be seen as a way to reshape the international economic system, putting China at the center.

China has not been an easy partner for the West. Initial optimism that China would turn toward a free market economy has yet to come to fruition. Moreover, with its “capitalism with Chinese characteristics,” the country has taken the main benefits of the open trade system by creating major distortions and causing disputes that the WTO lacked the capacity to handle. Controversial issues include intellectual property rights (IPR), free market revisions through government subsidies and state-owned enterprises (SOEs), unequal conditions for market access with major restrictions to market entry in China, and unfair technology transfer. Foreign firms operating in China struggle against restrictive regulations — the government often requires them to hand over their intellectual property as a condition of market access. Asymmetrical market access and lack of reciprocity are magnified further at political levels.

With the existing WTO rule book, it is difficult to hold China accountable. Implications of Chinese “market distortion” and “unfair competitive conditions” consume global trade relations rhetoric; these opinions, voiced loudly by the current U.S. administration, are also shared broadly by other players, such as the EU and Japan. Due to high trade deficits, the United States is pushing for WTO reforms, increasing tariffs, and blocking the nominations of seats on the WTO’s appellate body (where the U.S. is a major player in the dispute resolution process) as leverage. Desired reforms aim to regulate market distortions caused by government interventions, simplifying the process of gathering information on unfair trade and investment practices, broadening the scope of banned subsidies, and setting boundaries to proportionate retaliations. But, at the end of the day, why would China agree on reforms that jeopardize its state-run economic model?

The WTO as a Reflection of a “New World”

The WTO does not operate in isolation from changes and new developments impacting trade. In the last two decades, the world’s macroeconomic environment was shaken by at least two significant events: the spread of terrorism, and the financial crisis of 2008. Terrorism has enhanced the inward focus of the political and economic aspects of national security; the global recession has caused an inward retraction of production and services. International economic issues were largely ignored as attention shifted to domestic job creation, the security and protection of domestic credit markets, and enhancing liquidity. Further, financial and political conflicts seem to foster greater polarization among legislators in many countries around the world.

As a result of continued stalemates and disagreements at the WTO, external actors are adopting a new “do-it-yourself” approach defined by preferential plurilateral trade negotiations — handmade for and benefitting only a limited number of players.

In addition, there is the issue of China’s growth in influence. In September 2018, the United States together with  the EU and Japan signed a brief statement voicing shared concerns regarding the future of the WTO, questioning its validity as a primary platform for multilateral trade. As an immediate result of difficult trade relations between the United States and China, and tremendous  pressure applied by the current U.S. administration, China afforded European companies access to some sectors, while pledging to cooperate with the EU on WTO reforms — a decision taken in July 2018 during the EU-China Summit.

Since the appearance of President Xi Jinping at the World Economic Forum two years ago, Beijing has been signaling that it is willing and prepared to assume the role of a new custodian of globalization. However, it seems obvious that China would not accept any reforms at the WTO, or any level, that would jeopardize its own economic model and welfare. At the same time, China wants to preserve the existing global trade order, as the outside world is more crucial than ever for its economic development.

Today’s global economic realities are not only introducing a new set of concerns and means of doing business, they are also challenging the very effectiveness of the WTO’s historical role as an arbiter of world trade.

Valbona Zeneli is the Chair of the Strategic Initiatives Department at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. The views presented are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent views and opinions of the Department of Defense or the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. 

Michael R. Czinkota is a professor at the University of Kent in Canterbury and at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, He is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the United States Department of Commerce. 

Bridges Built Through Trust

Why does a Georgetown University professor write about the soul and international business? Because they’re closely interlinked! An analysis of a new world, terrorism, the future of trade, and the search for the soul are what you find in this book. “In Search for the Soul of International Business”, by Michael Czinkota hits the shelves just when needed most, given new environments, new approaches, new emotions and new commitments. “I consider the soul the center of our aspirations and inspirations. Loss of soul typically connotes death. Maintaining a soul offers a reference point and stability. For one’s progress in thinking I aim to supply both content and context.”Author Bio: Professor Michael R. Czinkota teaches international marketing and business at the McDonough School of Business of Georgetown University and the University of Kent in Canterbury. He served in the U.S. government as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, as head of the U.S. Delegation to the OECD Industry Committee in Paris and as senior trade advisor for Export Controls. Over the past 30 years he is consistently listed in every international marketing and business ranking as a top 20 author. He is a distinguished fellow of the Academy of Marketing Science and of the Chartered Institute of Marketing. He received the AMA Lifetime Achievement Award in 2007. The Universidad Ricardo Palma of Lima. Peru named its new International Marketing School after Czinkota. Book Info: Trade and globalization inundate us with constant information, new concepts, and endless data. Individuals are caught in the whirl-wind of a fast-paced world, often without the ability to stop and think, particularly when it comes to issues of the soul. With a foreword by Ambassador Dr. László Szabó ,a preface by the Rev. Horkan, and the humorous yet pensive illustrations by award-winning cartoonist David Clark, this book jumpstarts the reader’s ability for a comprehensive understanding of pressing international business and trade issues and their linkage to the soul. “In Search for the Soul of International Business”, by Michael Czinkota hits the shelves just when needed most, given new environments, new approaches, new emotions and new commitments.

Contact Info: Book Ordering Link:https://bit.ly/2B2LAZS

Authors Website: http://www.michaelczinkota.com,

email: czinkotm@georgetown.edu

Phone: 202-687-4204

Social Media: https://www.facebook.com/czinkotm 

Sheri E. Dean, Marketing Director, Business Expert Press and Momentum Press 919-612-6706

Get the inside scoop on the story behind this book by contacting Michael Czinkota at czinkotm@georgetown.edu

Buy this book at https://bit.ly/2B2LAZSor at Amazon.com

Trumps Wirtschaftspolitik in den USA / ZIB 2 vom 02.11.2018 um 22.00 Uhr

Trumps Wirtschaftspolitik in den USA / ZIB 2 vom 02.11.2018 um 22.00 Uhr

Visit From Mr.Barry Rhoads

It was a great pleasure to have Mr. Barry Rhoads, the Chairman of Cassidy & Associates – the largest lobbying firm in Washington — return to my seminar. He gave an overview of US trade and the exposure of importers under the trade policy of the Trump administration. As to be expected – an excellent and in-depth analysis, accompanied by forecasts of the 2018 midterm elections.

Helping Hungary helps us all

Hungary is a frequent sacrificial  lamb on the altar of international conflict. Hungarians  well remember the occupation by the Ottomans and Islam. Those 150 years brought de-population, destruction of land and buildings, uncontrolled migration and major displacement of resources, but kept Western Europe safe from the Ottoman empire.

On many other occasions, Hungary has taken risks, invested its youth and subjugated its own political ambitions for the sake of Western security. The gratitude for such dedication and depletion of resources has been scant. Occasions where the West shares resources, offers equal treatment or a partnership, remain mostly absent. Hungary continues to suffer from being too close to the East and too far from the West, while being damaged by any conflict between the two.

After centuries of suffering, one would expect today a new era for a united Europe. Since its founding, the European Union was to be driven by cooperation and cohesiveness. Not an easy task since joint undertakings with a large diversity of regions and people require adjustment and flexibility. In a  U.S. comparison, our century and half absence of any break-up is no coincidence. Rather, the fact that overall we stick together is the result of accommodation, restraint , and, in case of conflict, not to insist on a ‘winner takes all’ outcome.

The European Union would do well to learn from the United States and avoid internal separation. Right now, this large group of states is taking punitive measures against some of its own members, particularly those from Central Europe. Sanctions are to demonstrate displeasure with immigration restrictions, judicial appointments, retirement policies and the regulation of  foreign universities. Hungary and Poland are most exposed to EU attacks, particularly for restrictions of immigration.

Three years ago,  migrants started to stream into the EU by the hundreds of thousands from Libya, Syria and Lebanon . Most entered via the first open southern border which was in Hungary. When that country did not receive any outside help or relief,  Hungarian prime minister Orban sharply reduced and controlled the flow of humanity by applying EU rules on registration, documentation, and restriction. He believed that a small country with very limited resources needs to understand, plan and structure for massive population displacements. For his actions, he was thoroughly scolded by many fellow EU members.

It turns out that even large nations with ample resources cannot disregard the consequences  of unplanned for massive migration. Years after complaining about the ‘Hungarian Way’ the EU  imitates what by now have turned out to be  the sound policies of Hungary.  Germany now learns to recognize how fallacious its migration missteps are and will continue to be.

One might assume that Chancellor Merkel would express her gratitude for Hungary’s leadership in policy and implementation. Alas – the contrary is the case. EU debates concerning Hungary are typically rich with displeased looks, invisible barriers and ignominious ignorance. No matter the country’s strong democratic elections and popular support, things in Hungary are seen as ‘just not right’.

The EU’s negative politics towards Hungary are wrong. Many of the loudly pronounced disappointments are nothing but envious efforts to retain local votes in upcoming elections. Some of the EU steps might even reflect an unwillingness to develop and tolerate new approaches and change. The U.S. government should not accept such overpowering opposition to homegrown priorities. It should recognize Hungary as an important ally when it comes to innovation, immigration and intellectual property. Hungary’s government represents, similar to the United States, a country of adjustment with creative directions and a new emphasis.  We should support Hungary in light of the overwhelming and unjustified pressures to which the country is exposed. It is not automatically wrong for a nation’s democratically elected government to move beyond traditional policy boundaries. “No bullying” also applies to the smaller members of the EU. Hungary has the right to pursue its happiness. To Europe we can offer insights from a successful cohesive policy outcome. To Hungary, we should smilingly help when it takes steps which have made America so successful.

Professor Czinkota (Czinkotm@Georgetown.edu) teaches International Business and Trade at Georgetown University and the University of Kent in Canterbury. His forthcoming book in October  is “In Search For The Soul of International Business.