- THE MAGAZINE
The World Trade Organization, or WTO, announced its first ever global trade deal, overcoming disagreements that troubled negotiations among ministers from 159 member nations who had gathered on the Indonesian island of Bali.
- To learn more about the deal, go check out WT100’s “A Quick Look at the WTO/Bali Deal.”
After the announcement was made, it did not take long for industry leaders, experts, and political heads to respond. Below are some of those reactions:
The WTO’s Bali agreement… represents the rejuvenation of the multilateral trading system that supports millions of American jobs and offers a forum for the robust enforcement of America’s trade rights. As such, we are proud of the United States’ leadership role in reaching this accord…
— President Barack Obama
FedEx welcomes the WTO’s first multilateral trade agreement in its 19 year history. … This is the kind of practical, commercially meaningful trade agreement that business needs more of from the WTO.
— Michael L. Ducker, FedEx Express President and COO
This break-through agreement among 159 nations is a giant step forward for businesses large and small in expediting the movement of goods globally and reducing unnecessary paperwork. While there remain areas where additional progress is necessary, the trade facilitation agreement provides a new base from which we can continue to elevate customs standards. This could further support the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations.
— Scott Davis, UPS chairman and CEO
The Trade Facilitation agreement doesn't in anyway support the Pacific to take advantage of this outcome. Instead this is an agreement that will see rich countries and their corporations benefit from having their goods move through Pacific borders quicker. We should be under no illusion that this is an agreement for the Pacific to increase their exports.
— Adam Wolfenden, Pacific Network on Globalisation
The Bali package is hardly going to make a difference for poor countries, but at least it keeps the negotiations on food security alive. However a peace clause can’t be the end of the story and negotiators now have to find a long term solution to change the rigged rules that stand in the way of developing countries food security policies. … The LDC specific decisions are unlikely to make an economic difference for poor countries. It is all best endeavor language, which is the trade negotiators equivalent of crossing fingers behind your back.
— Romain Benicchio, Oxfam International Senior Policy Advisor