The Pros And Cons Of Entering Into Negotiations On Free .

2y ago
17 Views
2 Downloads
4.64 MB
92 Pages
Last View : 21d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Dani Mulvey
Transcription

-rHE PROS AND CONS OF ENTERINGIJTO NEGOTIATIONS ON FREE TRADEAREA AGREEMENTS WITH TAIWAN,THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, ANDASEAN, OR THE PACIFIC RIMREGION IN GENERALReport to the Senate Committeeon Finance on InvestigationNo. TA-332-259 Under Section332 of the Tariff Act of 1930USITC PUBLICATION 2166MARCH 1989United States International Trade CommissionWashington, DC 20436

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSIONCOMMISSIONERSAnne E. Brunsdale, Acting ChairmanAlfred E. EckesSeeley G. LodwickDavid B. RohrRonald A. CassDon E. NewquistOffice of EconomicsJohn W. Suomela, DirectorTrade Reports DivisionMartin F. Smith, ChiefThis report was prepared principally byConstance A. Hamilton,Project DirectorPaul R. GibsonDiane L. ManifoldL. Lee TuthillWilliam T. HartWilliam W. GearhartAssistance was also provided by Randi S. Field and William Kane.Data assistance was provided by Susan Bachmann and Steven K. Hudgens.Supporting assistance was provided by Paula R. Wells and Linda Cooper.Address all communications toKenneth R. Mason, Secretary to the CommissionUnited States International Trade CommissionWashington, DC 20436

. .f. ' ' CONTENTSc . . ·'PageExecutive Summary . .- . : . ; . ·. : . : . . .vIntroduction . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiChapter 1. Summary of views on·a United States-Taiwan FTABackground . : . : . : : : . : . : . , . .-. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1United· States-Taiwan.trade . ,. .,. ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1Taiwan's trade with the world . :·.· .·.1-1New Taiwan dollar exchange rate . , . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1Overview . : . : . : . : . ·'. . ···'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2Perceptions about the political consequences of, United ta esTaiwan FTA negotiations . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2Perceptions about cultural differences . !·.-·;., .·.,;. . . . . . . . . .1-4Perceptions about the current negotiating approach . , . , . ·. . . . . . . . . . .1-4Advantages of the.FTA approach with Tai an ., . . , ·.·:.· ·:··· . :. :.- . , . . . . . . . . .1-5More c.omprehensive, less piecemeal· approacJqo, tr d . : . ·relations . ,, . ·-·. "· . ;· .· . :. . ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-5Would.improve U.S. trade and bilateral re.lations . ·. ·.1-5Would benefit the United States atia relatively-low·cost'.; . ;.,·: . .', ·. :.i-6Would facilitate Taiwan's structural adjustment . ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-6Would provide model for other FTAs and regional U.S.economic base . : : . : . : . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-7Would substitute for· lack of GATT membership py Taiwan . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-7Disadvantages of the FTA approach With Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8. The current approach is effective . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-8Would not end trade· disputes . : . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-8Taiwan would seek exemption to U .'S. trade faws : . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-8Would be difficult to implement in Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-9Would not significantly improve U.S. trade ., 1 : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-9Effects on third countries· . : . · . ,.1-11Alternatives to FT A approach . : .: . : . : . ," . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-11Chapter 2. Summary of views on a United States-Korea FTABackground . : . : . .:.· . ·: . ,. . ." . ·. . . . . . . .U.S. trade with Korea . : .· . ·. : . . . . . .Trade and exchange rates· . ." . : . .' . ." .· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Overview . : . : : . .,,,: . 1 .' . , . ;. ., . . . " : . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceptions about market access in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Perceptions on the timing of an FTA · . : , . . : .·. . .Perceptions on the· current U.S. negotiating approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Perceptions about negotiating resourc.es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Advantages of the FTA approach With Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Would improve the negotiating atmosphere . .". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Would provide a framework for negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Would increase market access in· Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Would ensure that liberalization plans are carried out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Disadvantages of the FTA approach with Korea . ·;·.Would adversely affect the political relationship . ; . . . . . . . . .Could perpetuate or increase anti-American sentiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Would not improve the negotiating.atmosphere . , . . . . . . . . . .Could delay liberalization in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Would not necessarily improve U.S. trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Would not lead to free trade in all sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Would be difficult to implement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Is not politically feasible at the present time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alternative approaches to a United States-Korea -62-62-72-72-72-82-82-82-9

f,.1·····:CONTENTS-Continued-;·::·PageCha 1 ter 3. Summary of views on a United States-ASEAN Fr Background . ; . . . . .The ASEAN institutional framework . ·. . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Economic and trade data . . . . . . . . . . .ASEAN-U.S. initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Overview . ; . ; . , . · . . : . ·. ; . . . .Perceptions about the diversity of ASEAN members . ·'·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PerceptiOns about intra-ASEAN trade . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Perceptions about special and differei;itial treatment .· . ·. .- . . . . . . . . . . .Perceptions about negotiating resources and the current·negotiating approach . ·.· . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Advantages of a ·united States-ASEAN FTA . ::· . , . ·.Would provide emphasis to Uruguay Round . ··. ·.· Would provide a foi:umdiscussing trade issues . . "·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Would improve trade . ·. ··.Disadvantages of a United States-ASEAN FTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Would be impossible to itjonitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Would not improve negotiating atmosphere . , . : . :.Would hot necessarily benefit United States trade . : . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alternatives to the United States-ASEAN FTA approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .forChapter 4. Summary of views on a United States-PacJfic JUniregional FTA·Background . ·. ·. '. . ·.· .· . ,· . . ·. : . .Status of trade and market access . ·. .Perceptions on feasibility anc:I negotiating odalities . .· A regional FTA is not feasible . · . ·. .A regional FTA is feasible .· .· . , . ; . .Advantages of a regional FTA approach . , . ; . .Would confer political benefits and promote regionalcooperation . ·. '. · . ;·; . , . ; . : . . Would confer economic benefits and opportunities . ; . .Would complement and augment the GATT . ·. .Disadvantages of a regional FTA approach . . .'Would have political ·risks . : . · . , . : . .·.Would have a negative c9nomic impact . . , .: . .Would further fragment the world into trade blocs . , . .Third country considerations : . : . : . .Further considerations regarding Japan . ·: . ·. ·. . .,. Further considerations regarding Australia and New .Zealand . ·.Alt rnative regional approaches : : . , . : . ; .Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference . .Shultz Initiative . : . .· "PAC-8" proposal . : . . -. : . .·Pacific OECD . .A greater role for the NI Es . ." . 'G TT. , . " . ,· .·l\1.1n1- Aproposals., . .Chapter 5. Implications for the Multilateral Trading System.Rely on the GATT, but use FTAs as fallback . ·. ·.Pu.rsue FTAs and GA TT simuitaneously . -. . : . .·Pursue the GATT only; 'FTAs will. hurt the multilateral system . ·. .·The special case of Taiwan .· . 4-74-74-84-94-94-94-104-104-10. 5-15-15-25-3

CONTENTS-ContinuedPageFigure1Organizational structure of ASEAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2ASEAN socioeconomic indicators: by countries, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Imports for consumption at customs value from Taiwan, 1985-87and January-September 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. dor.1estic exports at f.a.s. value to Taiwan 1985-87 andJanuary-September 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Imports for consumption at customs value from Korea, 1985-87and January-September 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. domestic exports at f.a.s. value to Korea, 1985-87and January-September 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Imports for consumption at customs value from ASEAN, 1985-87and January-September 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. domestic exports at f.a.s. value to ASEAN, 1985-87and January-September 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Imports for consumption at customs value from PacificRim countries 1985-87 and January-September 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. domestic exports at f.a.s. value to Pacific Rimcountries, 1985-87 and January-September 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . er of Request from Senate Committee on Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BFederal Register Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CList of Submissions and Hearing Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DTrade Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ESubmission from United States Trade RepresentativeClayton Yeutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D-1D-2D-3D-4D-5D-6D-7D-8A-1B-1C-1D-1E-1iii

:E:XECUTIVE SUMMARY. ··on August" 4, 1988, .the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance requested the U.S.· international Trade Commission to provide a summary of the views of recognizedauthorities on United States-Pacific Rim trade relations on· the pros and cons of enteringiriio negotiations for free. trade area agreements (FT As) with Taiwan, the Republic of· Korea, and ASEAN1, or the Pacific Rim region in ,general. In response to theCominitte 's request, ·the Commission instituted ,inves igation No . 332-259 onSeptember 9, 19 8 8.'.The Committee requested the Commission to solicit and summarize views on "thefeasibility and desirability" of using FTAs "to develop a more comprehensive and fruitfulapproach" to trade with countries in the Pacific Rim. The kind of FT As the Committeewished to be· considered were those that "could include, in addition to the eventualcomplete elimination ·of all tariffs and other restrictive regulations of commerce onsubstantially all trade between the United States and these countries, the removal ofbarriers to investment and trade in services, ahd the guarantee of adequate protection ofintellectual property rights." The Committee also asked the Commission to presentproblem areas that, according to experts, would render the completion of these FTAsless than ideally effective, as well as expert·s suggestions for alternative policy approachesfor the United States. Persons whose views were obtained by the Commission includedU .S, and foreign trade negotiators and other government officials, U ,S. and foreignprivate sector representatives active in business or trade between the United States andPacific Rim countries, academics with relevant country-specific or regional expertise, andexecutives of industry associations and other nongovernmental organizations.Several themes emerged from the· views put forth by the many representatives ofgovernments, ·private industry, and academia who participated in the study. Severaladvantages, disadvantages, and other considerations were presented as common to anyFT A, regardless of which country or areas are addressed. These observations aresummarized as, follows:.'- . . ': '· Although participants' definitions of an FT A varied somewhat, there waswidespread consensus that any FTA should be GATT-consistent and fairly broadin coverage, including :not only general· market access issues, but also protectionfor intellectual property rights and the remo'val of barriers to investment andservices.The majority of participants expressed support for the multilateral trading systemand indic.ated that the United States should first concentrate its energy andresources on successfully conCluding the Uruguay Round before resorting toanother FTA to achieve liberalization objectives. If the Uruguay Round doesnot prove to be fruitful, the United States might then want to consider FTAs withother countries thaf have expressed an interest. Moreover, many participants· cautioned that embarking on an FT A approach now .could derail the UruguayRound and weaken the multilateral system. A· widely· held· perception among participants was that an FTA between theUnited States and a country or areas that are significantly less economicallyadvanced (including the newly industrializing economies) could not fully achievefree trade among the partners for both economic and political reasons.Regarding individual country FT As, many participants suggested that themarkets of any one country or area under consideration in the region might notbe large enough in terms of potential benefits to be worth the price the United.States would have to pay .in trade concessions. Although the Pacific Rim region as a whole offers a large market and hugepote tial benefits resulting from an FT A, negotiations with so many diverseeconomies at once would not be workable.Many participants agreed that the current U.S. negotiating approach with PacificRim countries is not effective and. cited a need for some alternativeapproach-although not necessarily an FTA-to foster greater cooperation andcoordination of trade policy with these countries.1The member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are: BruneiDarussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.v

:United States-Taiwan FfATaiwan authorities expressed strong interest in a bilateral FTA with the Unit d States.Many U.S. participants interpreted Taiwan's interest as a political maneuver to gain defacto recognition in the absence of formal diplomatic relations with' the United States. Alarge number of participants raised questions about the legal mechanism the UnitedStates could use to enter into negotiations with Taiwan. Taiwan authorities and Taiwanbusinessmen generally favored the notion of an FTA with the United States. However,many U.S. participants were skeptical about the feasibility of an FTA will) Taiwan.Advocates of a United States-Taiwan FTA listed several arguments in support of suchan agreement. They foresaw favorable results such as improvements in the negotiatingatmosphere, U.S. access to the Taiwan market, and in the bilateral trade imbalance.They also favored the idea because, as Taiwan is not a member Qf the GATT, UnitedStates-Taiwan trade dispu!es cannot be addressed in that forum. · ·Participants cited several disadvantages to an FT A with Taiwan. . Thefr argumentssometimes hinged upon the belief that the present approach to. trade relations withTaiwan has been successful for meeting U.S. trade policy goals. Some predicted t attrade disputes would not abate even under an FTA nor wouJd an FTA alone .besuccessful in increasing U.S. exports to Taiwan. At the same time, they feared Taiwanwould seek exceptions to U.S. trade laws and that several important sectors or issuesmight be excluded from an FTA.''·AdvantagesSome of the advantages of a United States-Taiwan FT A cited by part cipants werethat it would:· " avoid an "issue-by-issue" or "piecemeal" approach to handling trade 9isputesand thereby help improve overall relations and resolve a broad range of tradedisputes;,'provide both sides with greater predictabil ty and less acrimony in the bilateraltrade relationship through comprehensive consideration of trade . issues andestablishment of a. dispute settlement pr

· international Trade Commission to provide a summary of the views of recognized authorities on United States-Pacific Rim trade relations on· the pros and cons of entering iriio negotiations for free. trade area agreements (FT As) with Taiwan, the Republic of · Korea, and ASEAN1, or the Pacific Rim region in ,general.

Related Documents:

Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .

May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)

̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions

Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have

On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.

Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được

Pros and Cons Pros and Cons:A Debater's Handbook offers an indispensable guide to the arguments both for and against over 140 current controversies and global issues. The nineteenth edition includes new entries on topics such as the right to possess nuclear weapons, the bailing out of failing companies, the protection of indigenous

Food outlets which focused on food quality, Service quality, environment and price factors, are thè valuable factors for food outlets to increase thè satisfaction level of customers and it will create a positive impact through word ofmouth. Keyword : Customer satisfaction, food quality, Service quality, physical environment off ood outlets .