[UNCTAD] No More Silence
Written by RT
RT has interviewed the Delegates of New Zealand and the United States of America to better understand their viewpoints regarding the mitigation of fallouts of the US-China Trade War.
RT chose to interview the Delegate of New Zealand based on her claim that the Trade War has not created a great impact on its nation. However, New Zealand also believes in shifting away from the US and China as economic powers.
The Delegate of the USA has remained relatively silent during the council sessions. As one of the large countries in question, RT hopes to find out more about the views of the US regarding the damage they have caused due to the Trade Wars. But can we really stop the silence?
Q: To the delegate of New Zealand, you have mentioned that the US-China Trade War has minimal consequences on your nation, so why would you be willing to incur high administrative costs to diversify your supply chain?
A: “By switching suppliers, countries will have to rebuild the trust between countries and settle administrative manners. This causes additional costs to the country, on top of having a lower net export...As the US-China trade war is filled with uncertainty and is unlikely to be resolved soon, it is hard to predict what will happen next. In the long run, there may be more impacts such as tariffs and trade barriers imposed... By investing in administrative costs, we are looking at it as an investment that we hope will be beneficial for our country in the future.”
Recognising the time and expenses required to strengthen the supply chain, RT urges all delegates of the UNCTAD to remember that the destabilisation of the world economy is caused by allowing the Trade War to affect countries outside of the conflicting parties. Based on historical data, China has only fairly imposed tariffs and anti-dumping duties on US and Australian goods. On the other hand, the US has imposed tariffs on many countries, such as Canada, Mexico, Japan, as well as trade protectionism measures on other countries as a means of decreasing trade deficits. In the case that the US has caused these fallouts, why should countries divert trade away from China?
Q: To the delegate of the United States of America, would the US be willing to support developing countries whose economy has been adversely affected by the Trade War?
A: “Yes absolutely. The United States of America understands it is partially responsible for the fallout of this trade war and would like to compensate by supporting these developing countries... The US is willing to provide funding and share technology and know-how...and in turn the US will be able to move parts of its supply chain out of China and into these nations.”
However, based on the delegate’s exclusive rhetoric in council, such as mentioning that the US is open to “mutually beneficial” economic ties with “certain developed countries”, it can be inferred that the US is certainly unwilling to offer such resources to developing nations. Furthermore, the Delegate of the US assumed “[partial responsibility]” for the US-China Trade War, despite clearly triggering the start of the Trade War in 2018 based on baseless accusations of China’s “dumping”. Further responsibility can be substantiated by the US causing the main fallouts of the US-China Trade War by increasing tariffs on countries outside of China and destabilising the rest of the world.
It should also be noted that the United States of America chose not to respond to certain questions, namely “what do you think the main fallout of the US-China Trade War is and why?” and “do you agree with achieving a balance between trade diversification and maintaining good relations with the US and China?”.
Council Progress or Regress?
UNCTAD has found itself in murky waters with further disagreements over the aid provided to developing countries, and the formation of trade blocs and fair trade agreements. Spiralling back to the definition of “aid” and the agreement of developed countries, is the council progressing? One can only hope that they find their way to a more productive debate and more viable solutions, targeting the root causes of the fallouts.
RT has interviewed the Delegates of New Zealand and the United States of America to better understand their viewpoints regarding the mitigation of fallouts of the US-China Trade War.
RT chose to interview the Delegate of New Zealand based on her claim that the Trade War has not created a great impact on its nation. However, New Zealand also believes in shifting away from the US and China as economic powers.
The Delegate of the USA has remained relatively silent during the council sessions. As one of the large countries in question, RT hopes to find out more about the views of the US regarding the damage they have caused due to the Trade Wars. But can we really stop the silence?
Q: To the delegate of New Zealand, you have mentioned that the US-China Trade War has minimal consequences on your nation, so why would you be willing to incur high administrative costs to diversify your supply chain?
A: “By switching suppliers, countries will have to rebuild the trust between countries and settle administrative manners. This causes additional costs to the country, on top of having a lower net export...As the US-China trade war is filled with uncertainty and is unlikely to be resolved soon, it is hard to predict what will happen next. In the long run, there may be more impacts such as tariffs and trade barriers imposed... By investing in administrative costs, we are looking at it as an investment that we hope will be beneficial for our country in the future.”
Recognising the time and expenses required to strengthen the supply chain, RT urges all delegates of the UNCTAD to remember that the destabilisation of the world economy is caused by allowing the Trade War to affect countries outside of the conflicting parties. Based on historical data, China has only fairly imposed tariffs and anti-dumping duties on US and Australian goods. On the other hand, the US has imposed tariffs on many countries, such as Canada, Mexico, Japan, as well as trade protectionism measures on other countries as a means of decreasing trade deficits. In the case that the US has caused these fallouts, why should countries divert trade away from China?
Q: To the delegate of the United States of America, would the US be willing to support developing countries whose economy has been adversely affected by the Trade War?
A: “Yes absolutely. The United States of America understands it is partially responsible for the fallout of this trade war and would like to compensate by supporting these developing countries... The US is willing to provide funding and share technology and know-how...and in turn the US will be able to move parts of its supply chain out of China and into these nations.”
However, based on the delegate’s exclusive rhetoric in council, such as mentioning that the US is open to “mutually beneficial” economic ties with “certain developed countries”, it can be inferred that the US is certainly unwilling to offer such resources to developing nations. Furthermore, the Delegate of the US assumed “[partial responsibility]” for the US-China Trade War, despite clearly triggering the start of the Trade War in 2018 based on baseless accusations of China’s “dumping”. Further responsibility can be substantiated by the US causing the main fallouts of the US-China Trade War by increasing tariffs on countries outside of China and destabilising the rest of the world.
It should also be noted that the United States of America chose not to respond to certain questions, namely “what do you think the main fallout of the US-China Trade War is and why?” and “do you agree with achieving a balance between trade diversification and maintaining good relations with the US and China?”.
Council Progress or Regress?
UNCTAD has found itself in murky waters with further disagreements over the aid provided to developing countries, and the formation of trade blocs and fair trade agreements. Spiralling back to the definition of “aid” and the agreement of developed countries, is the council progressing? One can only hope that they find their way to a more productive debate and more viable solutions, targeting the root causes of the fallouts.
Comments
Post a Comment