Though it wouldn't stop the Atlanticist member states' hostility, or the shit-stirring of the (Murdoch and Murdoch-style) press.
It's going to take a generation to organise a push-back.
Then again, Murdoch will be dead soon. None of his children seem likely to want to step into his shoes.
The point for the EU in the meantime is that a counter position is better than no voice at all.
afew:
It would obviously be paranoid of anyone to suggest any causal link between: Chiquita (ex United Fruit) => US gov't => Murdoch => Sun (+ rightwing press in general) => stupid EU banana regulations meme.
It would obviously be paranoid of anyone to suggest any causal link between:
Chiquita (ex United Fruit) => US gov't => Murdoch => Sun (+ rightwing press in general) => stupid EU banana regulations meme.
I'm not sure I'd go that far.
Doha was interesting because it's clear that China and India are more than happy to throw the EU and the US under the proverbial bus. The line seems to have been 'You have nothing we want' - and they're probably right about that.
So bananas may not be the most significant of problems at the moment. Without an export market for the EU and the US, the only way out of a depression will be massive Keynesian spending - and given the neocon lock down on policy, that's not going to be a popular suggestion.
Thinking about possible exports which China and India might be likely to buy could be more useful than trying to bully them from a position of assumed superiority.
Green tech remains an obvious economy leader there.
Neither am I, with the possible exception of the early '90s.
Of course the banana business (without mentioning major doubts about plantation sustainability) is a sideshow compared to the Doha stakes.
Green innovation is a lifeline, both for exports and Keynesian spending at home.
it's clear that China and India are more than happy to throw the EU and the US under the proverbial bus. The line seems to have been 'You have nothing we want' - and they're probably right about that.
Given that China sells about twice as much to the US and EU as it buys from them, I'd say there is leverage there in terms of trade relations...
But of course, most of Chinese trade to the EU and the US is done by US and EU multinational companies, so you have the interests of these vs everybody else dialectic to take into account. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
As I read it, the point was that the Chinese are perfectly happy to keep selling crap to the EU and US. They know it's crap, the importers know it's crap, the multinationals know it's crap, but my guess is that the Chinese think that if it's possible to keep getting paid real money - or at least reasonably convincing IOUs - for crap, they're still ahead of the game.
What they're not so happy about is opening their own territories to trade in the other direction. I'd guess EU/US goods still carry an image premium, and too much bread and butter competition would see money heading back out of those territories to the West - which is not part of the plan.
Therefore - deadlock, especially over staples like textiles.
What's not obvious in the West is that the West isn't an essential trading partner. Money is accumulating in Russia, India, the Gulf States, and South America, and five or ten years from now it's not a given that most of China's trade will be with the EU and US.
The EU and US seem to believe it is a given. But unless there's a significant technological lead - as with green tech - that's wishful thinking and inertia, not reality.
What the Chinese want to avoid is spending money abroad on manufactured items which could be made at home. (Albeit at lower quality.)
If EU trade is balanced, they won't be seeing a lot of room to move. So I suspect they won't be interested in windmills unless they're much, much better than they can make themselves.
When EU/US firms (e.g. Nokia, Apple, GE) have goods manufactured in China that are then sold in the US or EU, do these still count as "Chinese exports to the US/EU"? Cynicism is intellectual treason.
