posted 12-17-98 07:42 PM ET        

WASHINGTON - The United States is likely to hit Europe with trade sanctions early next year as the result of a bitter feud over European banana-import rules, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky said Wednesday. Barshefsky's tough comments, made in an interview with USA TODAY, were the clearest sign yet that the Clinton administration will impose 100% duties on certain imports from the 15-member European Union. The punitive tariffs, the first against the EU in a decade, could take effect as early as Feb. 1. Most likely, they would not go into force until March 3, after an expected EU challenge before the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Interesting, no? Well, what'd ya think?

posted 12-17-98 08:01 PM ET            

My view is that the banana companies are evil just considering the way they treat their employees (spraying with incredibly dangerous pesticides where they work). But the US is just protecting their trade interests. Like all the wars they have been in in this century (except this last one).

posted 12-18-98 03:32 AM ET            

Maybe over planes though......

posted 12-18-98 04:32 AM ET            

We all know that our friendly neighbors the americans, leaders of the free world and defenders of capitalism and democracy, want market discipline (ie. free market) to apply to every country in the world, but not to them, unless the "playing field" happens to be tilted in their favor, typically as a result of large-scale state intervention, terrorism, violation of treaties, or illegal economic warfare.

All this to say that these new trade sanctions do not surprise me at all.

posted 12-18-98 10:55 AM ET            

Well, the banana regulation is pretty silly IMO. But the US reaction to it... well:

The case has been before the WTO. The EU has changed the rules. The EU has offered to agree a fast track procedure before the WTO on the new issue. As pointed out in the link I gave above, the US sanctiosn would be completely unrelated and out of proportion. To be a bit cynical: everyone with big campaign donations and EU competition got on the list...

Though Maya's comment is very harsh, it is, in essence, true. The US seems to be incapable of accepting a partner with about the same economic clout in economic relations. If the US wants "fair trade", fine, but this does not mean that the US is the only one to define the term "fair". Pressuring for free trade in agricultural goods, for example, but imposing import quotas on wheat gluton (or so) the evry moment some competition appears.

posted 12-18-98 06:38 PM ET            

Or the strange attemps by the Euros to have a "Euro Weapons Industry" creating such items as the "Eurofighter". Altough why anyone would want that thing is beyond me...

Bananas just does not seem to be that big a issue. Planes and military equipment does..

posted 12-18-98 07:36 PM ET            

sorry all u americans but we just don't want it on the market ( that's another part of the so called trade war ).

Conserning the bananas ( and the beefs as well ) the situation is like this and will develop like this:

the US will make sanctions.... and EU will bring it up in the WTO.. thus removing the sanctions again.

posted 12-18-98 08:42 PM ET            

In any event, I think it is somewhat ridiclous for the US to start a tariff war over bannanas, esp. when the World econmy is in a position that a tariff war could have MAJOR problems. And who reallycares anyway, its not THAT big of a deal. I agree that the US is being a tad Imperialist, but it is somewhat justified. Still, fighting fire with fire just creates more of a bad thing.

posted 12-18-98 08:46 PM ET            

Sanctions only work if there are other sources for goods. If there is not, people will buy from the single source.

Example. A dirtly little secret from the Apartied santions was the fact that the US (and the EU) were STILL purchasing the VAST majority of their strategic minerals from South Afrika regardless of the sanctions in effect.

The US produces a huge amount of "unique" goods that other countries need. Thus sanctions....no worky.

posted 12-19-98 09:19 AM ET            

To give cattle hormones is not nearly as bad as breeding cattle to produce these hormones themselves, as we do in Europe (Belgian blue). The cattle gets so big and muscular that they cannot give birth to calves the normal way, it needs surgery to be born (I don't know what it the operation is called in English, but we call it kejsarsnitt="emperor cut" in Sweden). This is usually conducted without sedation and is very painful to the animal. And what is more, the meat still has hormones, even if they are not injected, but produced by the animal itself.

Of course, the best is probably to stick with ordinary cattle without giving it hormones, which is still done in many parts of Europe (maybe America as well, I don't know).

posted 12-19-98 03:44 PM ET            

1. BoomBoom: "does the US rely more on Europe for their imports than Europe on America?"

Imports/exports are about the same size and make up for about the same size of overall trade of the US as well as the EU. So from that perspective, both are in the same position.

2. Hothram: "Roland: The comment i made was in regards to the possibility of a trade war due to the ... well "interesting" arrangments that Airbus with the help of the Euro nations has been making with ex-colonys and other nations that still (for some strange reason) look to Euro."

Hmm... The US has a track record for pressuring nations that rely heavily on US aid to buy Boeing. And why is it strange for nations to look to europe ? The EU makes up for about 25 % of world GDP and trade (excluding internal EU trade), this is a bit more than the US. Not looking to europe means losing a lot of business opportunity...

3. Hothram: "Or the strange attemps by the Euros to have a "Euro Weapons Industry" creating such items as the "Eurofighter". Altough why anyone would want that thing is beyond me..."

Ehm... not sure what you mean there. There is a european weapon industry which is in restructuring, just like the US weapon industry. And: want which thing ? The eurofighter (now called "typhoon", I think) ? It's a good piece of military hardware, like another european co-project, the tornado. I'm not too fond of military export, but at least, european nations won't buy US weapons...

4. Utrecht: "The US produces a huge amount of "unique" goods that other countries need."

Which ones ? Microsoft programs ?

5. Biotech (hormones, genetically modified organisms etc...): the EU has more strict safety standards which the US tries to challange. We'll see on that one...

6. Maya: "Ah! Don't get me started on this! =)"

posted 12-19-98 08:28 PM ET            

we HATE being the police force of the world. the world is not worth the trouble.

posted 12-19-98 09:25 PM ET            

Is Britain part of the EU?

Is the EU overly taxing Bannanas imports?

If they are overly taxes the bannana import is it to prevent the spread of disease or is it protective in nature?

Is it true that the EU and most other nations subsidize home industry, agriculture(I know were sort of high in this catagory) and industrial, at an incredibly high rate compared to America?

If world trade stop, who would it hurt the most? (US, EU, Afica, Russian, Asia, Japan, Australia, or someone else)

posted 12-20-98 12:57 AM ET            

Is Britain part of the EU? Sorta. Best i can do. Thats what the Economist says so that is what i am going for.

Is the EU overly taxing Bannanas imports? Have no idea, Bannanas are not exactly a big topic in the US. No one cares.

If they are overly taxes the bannana import is it to prevent the spread of disease or is it protective in nature? Protective.

Is it true that the EU and most other nations subsidize home industry, agriculture(I know were sort of high in this catagory) and industrial, at an incredibly high rate compared to America?
Yes you do. A good example is the wine industry of France. That is heavily subsidized.

If world trade stop, who would it hurt the most? (US, EU, Afica, Russian, Asia, Japan, Australia, or someone else)
The US would be hurt the least. We are the only country in the world that not only has vaste amounts of natural reasorces but also the most diverse industry and economy in the world. We do not vitaly need anything from the world.
Japan would be destoryed, does not produce enough food, has no oil, and has practicly no natural reasorces.
China. Same as the US but far far less. Would lose a huge amount of their population as they still do not produce enough food. Relie on the US for rice...

Would the world be better off with no "policing" country, ie the US ceases foriegn policy in favor of isolationism, becuase it is painfully obvious the UN cannot do it.

No, we are better of with one country makeing the other countries not kill each other. No one could stop another Saddam if the US did not do it.... Empires and Wars would start all over again.

posted 12-20-98 06:16 PM ET            

There are just about no bananas grown in actual EU, so it's not protective in the ordinary way. Instead our bananas are grown in ex-colonies of France and England, whose companies are owned by Europeans. But diseases have nothing to do with the issue.

EU doesn't have very high taxes to foreign goods, but yet we are very protective compared to US, Canada or Australia. Being more leftish means supporting everything at least a bit by government. And that is stupid. For example Finnish farmers keep insisting, that farming in Finland should be profitable. No way that can happen without subsidies, when we can get cheap food from south nowadays without customs. So lots of money is directed here to farm wheat 2000 kg/ha, when in France you get 8000 kg/ha. Why join EU and not benefit from specialization the way Adam Smith proposes?

posted 12-21-98 05:22 AM ET            

Yes, just usually 5-10 years behind the latest steps of integration.

"Is the EU overly taxing Bannanas imports?"

There are certain quotas, imports beyond those quotas are under relatively high tariffs.

"If they are overly taxes the bannana import is it to prevent the spread of disease or is it protective in nature?"

Protective.

"Is it true that the EU and most other nations subsidize home industry, agriculture(I know were sort of high in this catagory) and industrial, at an incredibly high rate compared to America?"

No. The only area where you have massive subsidies is agriculture, but that goes for the US as well. The total amount of subsidies is higher in the EU IIRC, but for example, subsidies per workforce are much higher in the US.

"If world trade stop, who would it hurt the most? (US, EU, Afica, Russian, Asia, Japan, Australia, or someone else)"

Well, EU and US depend both to about 10 % of GDP on foreign trade. Regarding special resources, the US may be in a better position, but I don't think the difference would be that big.

"Would the world be better off with no "policing" country, ie the US ceases foriegn policy in favor of isolationism, becuase it is painfully obvious the UN cannot do it."

Isolationism would be bad for the world. Unilateral action, however, is not the best idea either.

Hothram: "Here you go ignorant Euro."

posted 12-22-98 09:04 AM ET            

Some info from Time Magazine:

http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/daily/0,2960,17226-101981221,00.html

On the issue of the influence of campaign donations, they write:

"The New York Times fired a salvo in that direction Wednesday when it reported that in this instance, free trade's biggest beneficiary is a Chiquita investor who had spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Yeah, but who hasn't?"