After the failure of global trade talks in Cancun, Mexico, America this week put the world on notice that it would accelerate efforts for bilateral and regional deals to foster trade, a plan that experts say is fraught with its own difficulties.Smaller-scale free-trade negotiations may involve fewer egos and fewer special interests than in the 146-nation WTO talks, but special interests, especially in agriculture, will still be in the game. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the US-Australia free trade negotiations the Bush administration wants to finish by this year.Allen Johnson, agriculture negotiator for the US Trade Representative, said he could not guarantee that the deadline would be met. ‘‘There’s a serious engagement on both sides. But I’m not sure how quickly this is all going to come together,’’ Johnson said.‘‘It’s not going to be an easy one,’’ he said. Australians are eager for a bilateral pact that they believe would add $4 billion to their economy annually.Most of the American agriculture is less enthusiastic. US farmers argue that Australia, a major exporter of beef, livestock and dairy, would flood the US market while providing few reciprocal benefits. US agriculture’s reticence also may be explained by the fact that the US presents Australia with an export market of 281 million consumers, compared to only 19 million down under for American industry.Jaime Castaneda, vice president of the US-based National Milk Producers Federation, which opposes a free-trade deal with Australia, said the collapse of WTO talks make matters more problematic. ‘‘What do we get out of an Australia agreement? Nothing. Zero,‘‘ Castaneda said.If the WTO had been able to craft a blueprint in Cancun for improved global trade, the milk group could tell its farmers ‘‘with new markets, we’re going to try to offset the imports from Australia,’’ he said. ‘‘But now, we don’t even have that.’’ The $24.5 billion US dairy industry says removing import tariffs on Australian milk, butter and cheese would bring nearly 7 billion pounds of extra shipments from Australia over the first four years of the deal. That, it says would cost US farmers $2.2 billion annually in lost revenues.Jeffrey Schott, a trade expert at the Institute for International Economics in Washington, played down the impact the Cancun failure would have on more limited negotiations, saying few ever believed the WTO talks would have met a January 2005 deadline for completion. Schott predicted that stalled WTO diplomacy ‘‘certainly will focus more attention’’ on regional and bilateral deals, such as a Central American pact that Washington is negotiating with Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.‘‘That’s good and bad news,’’ he said, noting that the Central American talks will now be under scrutiny, especially from US legislators, who have expressed concerns about the impact on American farmers and ranchers. (Reuters)
