“Some Economic Alliances”

View with images and charts

“Some Economic Alliances” of Significance all over the world

North American Free Trade Agreement:

The North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada. In terms of combined purchasing power parity GDP of its members, as of 2007 the trade bloc is the largest in the world and second largest by nominal GDP comparison.The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has two supplements, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC).

Background

In 1988 Canada and the United States signed the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement after which the U.S. Congress approved implementing legislation. The American government then entered into negotiations with the Mexican government for a similar treaty, and Canada asked to join the negotiations in order to preserve its perceived gains under the 1988 deal.[1] The climate at the time favored expanding trade blocs, such as the Maastricht Treaty, which created the European Union in 1992.

Negotiation and ratification

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Provisions

The goal of NAFTA was to eliminate barriers of trade and investment between the US, Canada and Mexico. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994, brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one half of U.S. imports from Mexico and more than one third of U.S. exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement, all US-Mexico tariffs would be eliminated except for some U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico that were to be phased out in 15 years. Most US-Canada trade was already duty free. NAFTA also seeks to eliminate non-tariff trade barriers.

Mechanisms

Chapter 20 provides a procedure for the interstate resolution of disputes over the application and interpretation of the NAFTA. It was modeled after Chapter 18 of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement.[4]

NAFTA's effects, both positive and negative, have been quantified by several economists, whose findings have been reported in publications such as the World Bank's Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and the Caribbean, NAFTA's Impact on North America, and NAFTA Revisited by the Institute for International Economics. Some[who?] argue that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen its poverty rates fall and real income rise (in the form of lower prices, especially food), even after accounting for the 1994–1995 economic crisis.[8] Others argue that NAFTA has been beneficial to business owners and elites in all three countries, but has had negative impacts on farmers in Mexico who saw food prices fall based on cheap imports from U.S. agribusiness, and negative impacts on U.S. workers in manufacturing and assembly industries who lost jobs. Critics also argue that NAFTA has contributed to the rising levels of inequality in both the U.S. and Mexico. Some economists believe that NAFTA has not been enough (or worked fast enough) to produce an economic convergence,[9] nor to substantially reduce poverty rates. Some have suggested that in order to fully benefit from the agreement, Mexico must invest more in education and promote innovation in infrastructure and agriculture.

Trade

According to Issac (2005), overall, NAFTA has not caused trade diversion, aside from a few industries such as textiles and apparel, in which rules of origin negotiated in the agreement were specifically designed to make U.S. firms prefer Mexican manufacturers. The World Bank also showed that the combined percentage growth of NAFTA imports was accompanied by an almost similar increase of non-NAFTA exports.

Industry

Maquiladoras (Mexican factories that take in imported raw materials and produce goods for export) have become the landmark of trade in Mexico. These are plants that moved to this region from the United States, hence the debate over the loss of American jobs. Hufbauer's (2005) book shows that income in the maquiladora sector has increased 15.5% since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. Other sectors now benefit from the free trade agreement, and the share of exports from non-border states has increased in the last five years while the share of exports from maquiladora-border states has decreased. This has allowed for the rapid growth of non-border metropolitan areas, such as Toluca, León and Puebla; all three larger in population than Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Reynosa.

Environment

For more details on this topic, see NAFTA's Impact on the Environment. Securing U.S. congressional approval for NAFTA would have been impossible without addressing public concerns about NAFTA’s environmental impact. The Clinton administration negotiated a side agreement on the environment with Canada and Mexico, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the Commission for

Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. To alleviate concerns that NAFTA, the first regional trade agreement between a developing country and two developed countries, would have negative environmental impacts, the CEC was given a mandate to conduct ongoing ex post environmental assessment of NAFTA.[10]In response to this mandate, the CEC created a framework for conducting environmental analysis of NAFTA, one of the first ex post frameworks for the environmental assessment of trade liberalization. The framework was designed to produce a focused and systematic body of evidence with respect to the initial hypotheses about NAFTA and the environment, such as the concern that NAFTA would create a “race to the bottom” in environmental regulation among the three countries, or the hope that NAFTA would pressure governments to increase their environmental protection mechanisms. The CEC has held four symposia using this framework to evaluate the environmental impacts of NAFTA and has commissioned 47 papers on this subject. In keeping with the CEC’s overall strategy of transparency and public

Agriculture

From the earliest negotiation, agriculture was (and still remains) a controversial topic within NAFTA, as it has been with almost all free trade agreements that have been signed within the WTO framework. Agriculture is the only section that was not negotiated trilaterally; instead, three separate agreements were signed between each pair of parties. The Canada–U.S. agreement contains significant restrictions and tariff quotas on agricultural products (mainly sugar, dairy, and poultry products), whereas the Mexico–U.S. pact allows for a wider liberalization within a framework of phase-out periods (it was the first North–South FTA on agriculture to be signed).The overall effect of the Mexico–U.S. agricultural agreement is a matter of dispute. Mexico did not invest in the infrastructure necessary for competition, such as efficient railroads and highways, creating more difficult living conditions for the country's poor. Still, the causes of rural poverty cannot be directly attributed to NAFTA in fact, Mexico's agricultural exports increased 9.4 percent annually between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9 percent a year during the same period. One of the most affected agricultural sectors is the meat industry. Mexico has gone from a small-key player in the pre-1994 U.S. export market to the 2nd largest importer of U.S. agricultural products in 2004, and NAFTA may be credited as a major catalyst for this change. The allowance of free trade removed the hurdles that impeded business between the two countries. As a result, Mexico has provided a growing meat market for the U.S., leading to an increase in sales and profits for the U.S. meat industry. This coincides with a noticeable increase in Mexican per capita GDP that has created large

Impact of NAFTA on Canada

Canada gained the most from NAFTA with Canada's GDP rate at 3.6%, growing faster than the United States at 3.3% and Mexico at 2.7%. Canadian employment levels have also shown steady gains in recent years, with overall employment rising from 14.9 million to 15.7 million in the early 2000s. Even Canadian manufacturing employment held steady. One of NAFTA's biggest economic effects on U.S.-Canada trade has been to boost bilateral agricultural flows.[39] In the year 2008 alone, Canada exports to the United States and Mexico was at CAN$381.3 Billion Dollars and imports from NAFTA was at CAN$245.1 Billion Dollars.[40]

The Canadian mainstream has been so unanimous in its recognition of NAFTA's advantages despite a few odd detractors that even former NDP Gary Doer of Manitoba openly praises the benefits of NAFTA.[41]

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation:

History

The concept of SAARC was first adopted by Bangladesh in the late 1970s, under President Ziaur Rehman. In the late 2000s, Indian President proposed the creation of a trade bloc consisting of South Asian countries. The idea of regional cooperation in South Asia was again mooted in May 2001. The foreign secretaries of the seven countries met for the first time in Colombo in April 2002. The Committee of the Whole, which met in Colombo in August 2002, identified five broad areas for regional cooperation. New areas of cooperation were added in the following years.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the Association as defined in the Charter are:

to promote the welfare of the people of South Asia and to improve their quality of life; to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and to provide all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity and to realize their full potential; to promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of South Asia; to contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one another's problems; to promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields; to strengthen cooperation with other developing countries; to strengthen cooperation among themselves in international forums on matters of common interest; and to cooperate with international and regional organization with similar aims and purposes.

Afghanistan was added to the regional grouping at the behest of India on 13 November 2005, and became a member on 3 April 2007.[4] With the addition of Afghanistan, the total number of member states were raised to eight (8). In April 2006, the United States of America and South Korea made formal requests to be granted observer status. The European Union has also indicated interest in being given observer status, and made a formal request for the same to the SAARC Council of Ministers meeting in July 2006. On 2 August 2006 the foreign ministers of the SAARC countries agreed in principle to grant observer status to the US, South Korea and the European Union. On 4 March 2008, Iran requested observer status.[7]

Followed shortly by the entrance of Mauritius.

Free trade agreement

Over the years, the SAARC members have expressed their unwillingness on signing a free trade agreement. Though India has several trade pacts with Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka, similar trade agreements with Pakistan and Bangladesh have been stalled due to political and economic concerns on both sides. India has been constructing a barrier across its borders with Bangladesh and Pakistan. In 1993, SAARC countries signed an agreement to gradually lower tariffs within the region, in Dhaka. Eleven years later, at the 12th SAARC Summit at Islamabad, SAARC countries devised the South Asia Free Trade Agreement which created a framework for the establishment of a free trade area covering 1.6 billion

people. This agreement went into force on January 1, 2008. Under this agreement, SAARC members will bring their duties down to 20 per cent by 2009.

Dhaka 2009 Summit

The summit accorded observer status to People's Republic of China, Japan, South Korea and United States of America. The nations also agreed to organize development funds under a single financial institution with a permanent secretariat, that would cover all SAARC programs and also ranging from social, to infrastructure, to economic ones.

Current members (alphabetically) Afghanistan  Bangladesh  Bhutan  India  Maldives  Nepal  Pakistan  Sri Lanka

Observers Australia  China  Burma  European Union Iran  Japan Mauritius  South Korea  United States

Future membershipThe People's Republic of China has shown its interest in joining SAARC. [13] While Pakistan and Bangladesh support China's candidature, India is against the prospect of Chinese membership. China's entry in to SAARC will likely balance India's overbearing presence there.[14] However, during the 2005 Dhaka summit, India agreed on granting observer status to the PRC along with Japan. During the 14th summit, Nepal along with Pakistan and Bangladesh, announced their support for the membership of China.[15][16][17] China seeks greater involvement in SAARC, however, finds it too early to apply for full membership.[18]  Indonesia intends to become an observer as well, and is supported by Sri Lanka.[19]  Iran, a state with borders to two SAARC members, has traditionally enjoyed strong cultural, economic and political relationships with Afghanistan and Pakistan and has expressed its desire to become a member of the South Asian organization. On 22 February 2005, the Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Kharrazi, indicated Iran's interest in joining SAARC by saying that his country could provide the region with "East-West connectivity". [20] On 3 March 2007, Iran asked to join the SAARC as an observer. SAARC Secretary-General Lyonpo Chenkyab Dorji responded by saying that Iran's request for observer status would be taken up during a meeting of ministers of foreign affairs of SAARC member countries in the 3 April summit in New Delhi.

 Russia intends to become an observer as well, and is supported by India.

 Myanmar has expressed an interest in joining as a full member, even though it is already a member of the ASEAN. If done so, Myanmar will become the ninth member in the group. India is currently backing Myanmar. Myanmar’s military regime officially applied for full SAARC membership in May 2008. However, the application is still being considered and the government is currently restricted to observer status.[

South Africa has participated in meetings.[27]

SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement

The Agreement on SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA)[28] was signed on 11 April 1993 and entered into force on 7 December 1995, with the desire of the Member States of SAARC (India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan and the Maldives) to promote and sustain mutual trade and economic cooperation within the SAARC region through the exchange of concessions.

The establishment of an Inter-Governmental Group (IGG) to formulate an agreement to establish a SAPTA by 1997 was approved in the Sixth Summit of SAARC held in Colombo in December 1991.

The basic principles underlying SAPTA are:

overall reciprocity and mutuality of advantages so as to benefit equitably all Contracting States, taking into account their respective level of economic and industrial development, the pattern of their external trade, and trade and tariff policies and systems; negotiation of tariff reform step by step, improved and extended in successive stages through periodic reviews; recognition of the special needs of the Least Developed Contracting States and agreement on concrete preferential measures in their favour; inclusion of all products, manufactures and commodities in their raw, semi-processed and processed forms.

So far, four rounds of trade negotiations have been concluded under SAPTA covering over 5000 commodities.

South Asian Free Trade Area

The Agreement on the South Asian Free Trade Area is an agreement reached at the 12th SAARC summit at Islamabad, capital of Pakistan on 6 January 2004. It creates a framework for the creation of a free trade area covering 1.6 billion people in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan and the Maldives.The seven foreign ministers of the region signed a framework agreement on SAFTA with zero customs duty on the trade of practically all products in the region by end 2016. The new agreement i.e. SAFTA, came into being on 1 January 2006 and will be operational following the ratification of the agreement by the seven governments. SAFTA requires the developing countries in South Asia, that is, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, to bring their duties down to 20 percent in the first phase of the two year period ending in 2007. In the final five year phase ending 2012, the 20 percent duty will be

reduced to zero in a series of annual cuts. The least developed nations in South Asia consisting of Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Maldives have an additional three years to reduce tariffs to zero. India and Pakistan have signed but not ratified the treaty

Mercosur

Mercosur or Mercosul or Ñemby Ñemuha. (Spanish: Mercado Común del Sur, Portuguese: Mercado Comum do Sul, English: Southern Common Market) is a union between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Founded in 1991 by the Treaty of Asunción, which was later amended and updated by the 1994 Treaty of Ouro Preto. Its purpose is to promote free trade and the fluid movement of goods, people, and currency. The official languages are Portuguese and Spanish.[1] It has been updated, amended, and changed many times since. It is now a full customs union. Mercosur and the Andean Community of Nations are customs unions that are components of a continuing process of South American integration connected to the Union of South American Nations.Mercosur origins trace back to 1985 when Presidents Raúl Alfonsín of Argentina and José Sarney of Brazil signed the Argentina-Brazil Integration and Economics Cooperation Program or PICE (Portuguese: Programa de Integração e Cooperação Econômica Argentina-Brasil, Spanish: Programa de Integración y Cooperación Económica Argentina-Brasil).[2] The program also proposed the Gaucho as a currency for regional trade.Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru currently have associate member status. Venezuela signed a membership agreement on 17 June 2006,[3] but before becoming a full member its entry has yet to be ratified by the Congress of Paraguay.[4]

The founding of the Mercosur Parliament was agreed at the December 2004 presidential summit. It should have 18 representatives from each country by 2010, regardless of population.[5] Israel[6] and Egypt[7] are currently the only non-South American free trade partners.

Member statesMercosur is composed of 4 sovereign member states: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay

Geography

The territory of Mercosur consists of the combined territories of its 4 member states. The territory of Mercosur is not the same as that of South America, as parts of the continent are outside Mercosur, such as Peru, Colombia and Chile.Including the overseas territories of member states, Mercosur experiences most types of climate from Arctic to tropical, rendering meteorological averages for Mercosur as a whole meaningless. The majority of the population lives in areas with a subtropical climate (Uruguay, Southern Paraguay, Northeastern Argentina and Southern and Southeastern Brazil), or a tropical climate (Northeastern Brazil).

Languages

Among the many languages and dialects used in Mercosur, it has 3 official and working languages: Portuguese, Spanish and Guaraní. Brazil is the only Portuguese-speaking country in Mercosur and in the Americas, as it formerly was part of Portuguese America. Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay were part of Spanish America. And Paraguay, sectors of Argentina and Brazil speak Guarani.

Objectiveedit

The Southern Common Market promotes:

The free transit of production goods, services and factors between the member states with inter alia, the elimination of customs rights and lifting of nontariff restrictions on the transit of goods or any other measures with similar effects; Fixing of a common external tariff (TEC) and adopting of a common trade policy with regard to nonmember states or groups of states, and the coordination of positions in regional and international commercial and economic meetings; Coordination of macroeconomic and sectorial policies of member states relating to foreign trade, agriculture, industry, taxes, monetary system, exchange and capital, services, customs, transport and communications, and any others they may agree on, in order to ensure free competition between member states; The commitment by the member states to make the necessary adjustments to their laws in pertinent areas to allow for the strengthening of the integration process. The Asunción Treaty is based on the doctrine of the reciprocal rights and obligations of the member states. Mercosur initially targeted free-trade zones, then customs unification and, finally, a common market, where in addition to customs unification the free movement of manpower and capital across the member nations' international frontiers is possible, and depends on equal rights and duties being granted to all signatory countries. During the transition period, as a result of the chronological differences in actual implementation of trade liberalization by the member states, the rights and obligations of each party will initially be equivalent but not necessarily equal. In addition to the reciprocity doctrine, the Asunción Treaty also contains provisions regarding the most-favored nation concept, according to which the member nations undertake to automatically extend, after actual formation of the common market, to the other Treaty signatories any advantage, favor, entitlement, immunity or privilege granted to a product originating from or intended for countries that are not party to ALADI. Free Trade Zones

The Province of Tierra del Fuego in Argentina has a free-trade zone.

The member nations can have commercial free-trade zones, industrial free-trade zones, export processing zones, and special customs areas, all of which target providing merchandise marketed or produced in these areas with treatment different from that afforded in their respective customs territories.

Tariffs

The member states can assess merchandise from these areas with the common external tariff used for Mercosur merchandise, or, in the case of certain special products, the domestic tariff prevailing in each individual state. In this way, the products from the free-trade zones can have the more favorable tax treatment established under Southern Common Market, given to the merchandise produced in the normal customs zones of each member state or, in the case of certain special products, can have the normal customs treatment prevailing in each nation.

Safeguards

Products produced or marketed in the free-trade zones of each member nation will be eligible for the safeguard system whenever this entails an increase not provided for in imports, but capable of causing damages or threatened damages to the importer country.

Incentives

In the event of the producing nation's granting special incentives for production from the free-trade zones that are not compatible with the corresponding guidelines established under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the member nation can make any adjustments needed to return the situation to equilibrium.

Creation of FTZs

The member nations agreed that any free-trade zones that in August 1994 were already in operation could operate normally under Mercosur, along with any that are set up in light of legal guidelines prevailing or in course in Congress during this same time period. This means that a member nation can no longer create new free-trade zones that are more privileged.

Reciprocal Promotion and Protection

Tax Issues

The member states are not however obligated to extend to investors in the other nations signatory to the Colonia Protocol the benefits of any treatment, preference or privilege resulting from international accords relating fully or partially to tax matters.

Exceptions

In addition, the member nations can temporarily establish a list of exceptions where the new treatment will not yet prevail. In this way, the various member nations decided to except the following economic sectors: Argentina: ownership of real estate on the frontier strip, air transportation, naval industry, nuclear plants, uranium mining, insurance and fishery; Brazil: mineral prospection and mining; use of hydraulic energy; health care; television and radio broadcasting and telecommunications in general, acquisition or leasing of rural properties; participation in the financial intermediation, insurance, social security and capitalization systems; chartering and cabotage as well as inland navigation; Paraguay: ownership of real property on the frontier strip; communications, including radio and television broadcasting; air, sea and land transportation; electricity, water and telephone services; prospecting for hydrocarbons and strategic minerals; import and refining of petroleum derivates and postal services; and Uruguay: electricity; hydrocarbons; basic petrochemicals, atomic energy; prospecting for strategic minerals; financial in Expropriation and Compensation

The member nations undertook to do nothing to nationalize or expropriate investments in their territories that pertain to investors from the signatory countries, unless such measures are taken based on public need. In such case, nothing discriminatory can be done, but everything must be implemented by due legal process. Compensation for the investment

holder that is expropriated or nationalized should be both adequate and effective, and made in advance, based on the real investment value determined at the time

Caribbean Community:

History

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM), originally the Caribbean Community and Common Market, was established by the Treaty of Chaguaramas[2] which came into effect on 1 August 1973. The first four signatories were Barbados, Jamaica, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago.CARICOM superseded the 1965–1972 Caribbean Free Trade Association (CARIFTA), which had been organised to provide a continued economic linkage between the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean following the dissolution of the West Indies Federation which lasted from 3 January 1958 to 31 May 1962.A Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas[3] establishing the Caribbean Community including the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) was signed by the CARICOM Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community on 5 July 2001 at their Twenty-Second Meeting of the Conference in Nassau, The Bahamas

Membership

CARICOM MembersStatus Name Join date Notes

Full member

 Antigua and Barbuda 4 July 1974 Bahamas 4 July 1983 Not part of customs union

 Barbados 1 August 1973

 Belize 1 May 1974 Dominica 1 May 1974 Grenada 1 May 1974

 Guyana 1 August 1973

 Haiti 2 July 2002 Provisional membership on 4 July 1998

 Jamaica 1 August 1973

 Montserrat 1 May 1974 British overseas territory

 Saint Kitts and Nevis 26 July 1974 Joined as Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla

 Saint Lucia 1 May 1974 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1 May 1974

 Suriname 4 July 1995

 Trinidad and Tobago 1 August 1973

Associate  Anguilla July 1999 British overseas territory Bermuda 2 July 2003 British overseas territory British Virgin Islands July 1991 British overseas territory Cayman Islands 16 May British overseas territory

2002 Turks and Caicos Islands July 1991 British overseas territory

Observer

 Aruba Country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Colombia

 CuraçaoCountry of the Kingdom of the Netherlandsstatus unknown after dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles

 Dominican Republic Mexico

 Netherlands Antilles Dissolved country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

 Puerto Rico Commonwealth of the USA

 Sint MaartenCountry of the Kingdom of the Netherlandsstatus unknown after dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles

 Venezuela

Statistics

Population and economic statistics of full members

Member Land area (km2)[13] Population[14] GDP (PPP)

Millions USD[15]GDP Per Capita USD[16]

Antigua and Barbuda 442.6 85,632 1,646 18,585Bahamas 10,010 342,000 9,228 27,394Barbados 430 279,000 5,244 19,026Belize 22,806 320,000 2,525 7,881Dominica 751 72,660 0,720 10,045Grenada 344 110,000 1,153 10,842Guyana 196,849 772,298 3,082 4,035Haiti 27,560 9,035,536 11,562 1,318Jamaica 10,831 2,825,928 20,958 7,766Montserrat 102 4,488 0,029 3,400Saint Kitts and Nevis 261 42,696 0,750 14,169Saint Lucia 606 160,765 1,839 10,819Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 389 120,000 1,086 10,150

Suriname 156,000 472,000 4,436 8,323

Trinidad and Tobago 5,128 1,305,000 27,038 20,723

Population and economic statistics of associate members

Member Land area (km2)[13] Population[14] GDP (PPP)

Millions USD[15]GDP Per Capita USD[16]

Anguilla 91 13,477 0.108 8,800Bermuda 54 67,837 5,085 91,477

British Virgin Islands 151 24,000 0.840 38,500

Cayman Islands 264 56,000 1,939 43,800Turks and Caicos Islands 948 36,600 0.845 6,400

Population and economic statistics of observers

Member Land area[13]

Population[14] GDP (PPP) Millions USD[15]

GDP Per Capita USD[16]

Aruba 180 106,000 2,400 21,800Colombia 1,109,104 44,928,970 396,579 8,400Dominican Republic 48,320 9,523,209 76,304 8,570

Mexico 1,943,945 111,211,789 1,548,007 14,560Netherlands Antilles 800 183,000 2,450 11,400

Puerto Rico 8,870 3,994,259 77.400 19,600Venezuela 882,050 28,199,825 358,623 12,785

Under Article 4 the CARICOM organisation breaks its 15 member states into two groups: Less Developed Countries (LDCs) and More Developed Countries (MDCs).

The countries of CARICOM which are designated as Less Developed Countries (LDCs) are:

Antigua & Barbuda Belize Commonwealth of Dominica Grenada Republic of Haiti Montserrat Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent & the Grenadines

The Latin American Free Trade Association

The Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA) was created in the 1960 Treaty of Montevideo by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. The signatories hoped to create a common market in Latin America and offered tariff rebates among member nations. LAFTA came into effect on January 2, 1962. When the trade association commenced it had seven members and its main goal was to eliminate all duties and restrictions on the majority of their trade within a twelve year period. [3] By the late 1960s the area of LAFTA had a population of 220 million and produced about $90 billion of goods and services annually. By the same time it had an average per capita gross national product of $440.[4]The goal of the LAFTA is the creation of a free trade zone in Latin America. It should foster mutual regional trade among the member states, as well as with the U.S. and the European Union. To achieve these goals, several institutions are foreseen:

Entry

Any Latin-American country can join the 1980 Montevideo Treaty. Cuba was the last to accede, becoming a full member on August 26, 1999. In addition, ALADI is also open to all Latin American countries through agreements with other countries and integration areas of the continent, as well as to other developing countries or their respective integration areas outside Latin America. ALADI is now the largest Latin-American group of integration. It is responsible for regulations on foreign trade which includes regulations on technical measures, sanitary regulations, environment protection measures, quality control measures, automatic licensing measures, price control measures, monopolistic measures, as well as other measures.

Methods

The ALADI promotes the creation of an area of economic preferences in the region, aiming at a Latin American common market, through three mechanisms:

Regional tariff preference granted to products originating in the member countries, based on the tariffs in force for third countries. Regional scope agreement, among member countries Partial scope agreements, between two or more countries of the area Either regional or partial scope agreements may cover tariff relief and trade promotion; economic complementation; agricultural trade; financial, fiscal, customs and health cooperation; environmental conservation; scientific and technological cooperation; tourism promotion; technical standards and many other fields. As the Montevideo Treaty is a "framework treaty", by subscribing to it, the governments of the member countries authorize their representatives to legislate through agreements on the economic issues of greatest importance to each country.A system of preferences — which consists of market opening lists, special cooperation programs (business rounds, preinvestment, financing, technological support) and countervailing measures on behalf of the landlocked countries — has been granted to the countries deemed to be less developed (Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay), to favour their full participation in the integration process. As the institutional and normative "umbrella" of regional integration that shelters these agreements as well as the subregional ones (Andean Community, MERCOSUR, G-3 Free Trade Agreement, Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, etc.) it is the aim of the Association to support and favour every effort in order to create a common economic area.

ASEAN:

History

ASEAN was preceded by an organisation called the Association of Southeast Asia, commonly called ASA, an alliance consisting of the Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand that was formed in 1961. The bloc itself, however, was established on 8 August 1967, when foreign ministers of five countries– Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand– met at the Thai Department of Foreign Affairs building in Bangkok and signed the ASEAN Declaration, more commonly known as the Bangkok Declaration. The five foreign ministers– Adam Malik of Indonesia, Narciso Ramos of the Philippines, Abdul Razak of Malaysia, S. Rajaratnam of Singapore, and Thanat Khoman of Thailand– are considered as the organisation's Founding Fathers.[10]

Continued expansion

On 28 July 1995, Vietnam became the seventh member.[13] Laos and Burma (Myanmar) joined two years later in 23 July 1997.[14] Cambodia was to have joined together with Laos and Myanmar, but was deferred due to the country's internal political struggle. The country later joined on 30 April 1999, following the stabilisation of its government. During the 1990s, the bloc experienced an increase in both membership as well as in the drive for further integration. In 1990, Malaysia proposed the creation of an East Asia Economic Caucus[16]

composing the then-members of ASEAN as well as the People's Republic of China, Japan, and South Korea, with the intention of counterbalancing the growing influence of the United States in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) as well as in the Asian region as a whole.[17][18] This proposal failed, however, because of heavy opposition from the United States and Japan.[17][19] Despite this failure, member states continued to work for further integration and ASEAN Plus Three was created in 1997.In 1992, the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) scheme was signed as a schedule for phasing tariffs and as a goal to increase the region’s competitive advantage as a production base geared for the world market. This law would act as the framework for the ASEAN Free Trade Area. After the East Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, a revival of the Malaysian proposal was established in Chiang Mai, known as the Chiang Mai Initiative, which calls for better integration between the economies of ASEAN as well as the ASEAN Plus Three countries (China, Japan, and South Korea).[20]

The ASEAN way

In the 1960s, the push for decolonisation promoted the sovereignty of Indonesia and Malaysia among others. Since nation building is often messy and vulnerable to foreign intervention, the governing elite wanted to be free to implement independent policies with the knowledge that neighbours would refrain from interfering in their domestic affairs. Territorially small members such as Singapore and Brunei were consciously fearful of force and coercive measures from much bigger neighbours like Indonesia and Malaysia. "Through political dialogue and confidence building, no tension has escalated into armed confrontation among ASEAN member countries since its establishment more than three decades ago.The ASEAN way can be traced back to the signing of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. "Fundamental principles adopted from this included:

mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations; the right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion;

non-interference in the internal affairs of one another; settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner; renunciation of the threat or use of force; and effective cooperation among themselves".[36]

On the surface, the process of consultations and consensus is supposed to be a democratic approach to decision making, but the ASEAN process has been managed through close interpersonal contacts among the top leaders only, who often share a reluctance to institutionalise and legalise co-operation which can undermine their regime's control over the conduct of regional co-operation. Thus, the organisation is chaired by the secretariat.[37]All of

these features, namely non-interference, informality, minimal institutionalisation, consultation and consensus, non-use of force and non-confrontation have constituted what is called the ASEAN Way.Since the late 1990s, many scholars have argued that the principle of non-interference has blunted ASEAN efforts in handling the problem of Myanmar, human rights abuses and haze pollution in the region. Meanwhile, with the consensus-based approach, every member in fact has a veto and decisions are usually reduced to the lowest common denominator. There has been a widespread belief that ASEAN members should have a less rigid view on these two cardinal principles when they wish to be seen as a cohesive and relevant community.

Economic Community

ASEAN has emphasised regional cooperation in the “three pillars” of security, sociocultural and economic integration.[58] The regional grouping has made the most progress in economic integration, aiming to create an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) by 2015.[59]

Free Trade Area

The foundation of the AEC is the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), a common external preferential tariff scheme to promote the free flow of goods within ASEAN.[59] The ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) is an agreement by the member nations of ASEAN concerning local manufacturing in all ASEAN countries. The AFTA agreement was signed on 28 January 1992 in Singapore.[60] When the AFTA agreement was originally signed, ASEAN had six members, namely, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Vietnam joined in 1995, Laos and Myanmar in 1997, and Cambodia in 1999. The latecomers have not fully met the AFTA's obligations, but they are officially considered part of the AFTA as they were required to sign the agreement upon entry into ASEAN, and were given longer time frames in which to meet AFTA's tariff reduction obligations.[61]

Comprehensive Investment Area

The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Area (ACIA) will encourage the free flow of investment within ASEAN. The main principles of the ACIA are as follows

All industries are to be opened up for investment, with exclusions to be phased out according to schedules National treatment is granted immediately to ASEAN investors with few exclusions Elimination of investment impediments Streamlining of investment process and procedures Enhancing transparency

Trade in Services

An ASEAN Framework Agreement on Trade in Services was adopted at the ASEAN Summit in Bangkok in December 1995.[63] Under AFAS, ASEAN Member States enter into successive rounds of negotiations to liberalise trade in services with the aim of submitting increasingly higher levels of commitments. The negotiations result in commitments that are set forth in schedules of specific commitments annexed to the Framework Agreement. These schedules are often referred to as packages of services commitments. At present, ASEAN has concluded seven packages of commitments under AFAS.[64]

Single Aviation Market

The ASEAN Single Aviation Market (SAM), proposed by the ASEAN Air Transport Working Group, supported by the ASEAN Senior Transport Officials Meeting, and endorsed by the ASEAN Transport Ministers, will introduce an open-sky arrangement to the region by 2015.[65] The ASEAN SAM will be expected to fully liberalise air travel between its member states, allowing ASEAN to directly benefit from the growth in air travel around the world, and also freeing up tourism, trade, investment and services flows between member states.[65]

[66] Beginning 1 December 2008, restrictions on the third and fourth freedoms of the air between capital cities of member states for air passengers services will be removed, [67] while from 1 January 2009, there will be full liberalisation of air freight services in the region, while[65][66] By 1 January 2011, there will be liberalisation of fifth freedom traffic rights between all capital cities.[68]

Free Trade Agreements With Other Countries

ASEAN has concluded free trade agreements with PR China, Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and most recently India.[69] The agreement with People's Republic of China created the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area (ACFTA), which went into full effect on January 1, 2010. In addition, ASEAN is currently negotiating a free trade agreement with the European Union.[70] Republic of China (Taiwan) has also expressed interest in an agreement with ASEAN but needs to overcome diplomatic objections from China.[71]

ASEAN six majors

ASEAN six majors refer to the six largest economies in the area with economies many times larger than the remaining four ASEAN countries. The six majors are: GDP nominal 2009 (USD million)

 Indonesia: 514,900  Thailand: 266,400  Malaysia: 191,463  Singapore: 177,132  Philippines: 160,991  Vietnam: 100,760

Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sect oral Technical and Economic Cooperation:

Background

On 6 June 1997, a new sub-regional grouping was formed in Bangkok and given the name BIST-EC (Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, and Thailand Economic Cooperation). Myanmar attended the inaugural June Meeting as an observer and joined the organization as a full member at a Special Ministerial Meeting held in Bangkok on 22 December 1997, upon which the name of the grouping was changed to BIMST-EC. Nepal was granted observer status by the second Ministerial Meeting in Dhaka in December 1998. Subsequently, full membership has been granted to Nepal and Bhutan in 2004. In the first Summit on 31 July 2004, leaders of the group agreed that the name of the grouping should be known as BIMSTEC or the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation.

Membership Criteria

Eligibility: Countries seeking membership should satisfy the conditions of territorial contiguity to, or direct opening into, or primary dependence on the Bay of Bengal for trade and transportation purposes.Procedure: All applications should be submitted in writing to the Chairman of BIMSTEC. The decision on admitting new members will be taken on the basis of consensus by all the BIMSTEC members. Institutional Structure and Arrangements The BIST-EC Declaration provides for the following institutional mechanisms:

MONTHLY MINISTERIAL MEETING WILL BE HELD., which shall be hosted by the Member States on the basis of alphabetical rotation. Senior Officials Committee, which shall meet on a regular basis as and when required. A Working Group, under the chairmanship of Thailand and having as its members the accredited Ambassadors to Thailand, or their representatives, of the other Member States, to carry on the work in between Annual Ministerial Meetings. Specialized task forces and other mechanisms as may be deemed necessary by the senior Officials to be coordinated by Member States as appropriate.

BIMSTEC Priority Sectors

BIMSTEC has thirteen priority sectors cover all areas of cooperation. Six priority sectors of cooperation were identified at the 2nd Ministerial Meeting in Dhaka on 19 November 1998. They include the followings:

1. Trade and Investment, led by Bangladesh 2. Transport and Communication, led by India 3. Energy, led by Myanmar 4. Tourism, led by India 5. Technology, led by Sri Lanka 6. Fisheries, led by Thailand

After the 8th Ministerial Meeting in Dhaka on 18-19 December 2005, a number of new areas of cooperation emerged. The number of priority sectors of cooperation increased from 6 to 13. The 7 new sectors were discussed in the 1st BIMSTEC Summit and there has been various activities to enhance those co-operations ever since. The sectors are as follows,

7. Agriculture, led by Myanmar 8. Public Health, led by Thailand 9. Poverty Alleviation, led by Nepal 10. Counter-Terrorism and Transnational Crime, led by India 11. Environment and Natural Disaster Management, led by India 12. Culture, led by Bhutan 13. People to People contact, led by Thailand

Chairmanship

BIMSTEC uses the alphabetical order for the Chairmanship. The Chairmanship of BIMSTEC has been taken in rotation commencing with Bangladesh (1997 - 1999), India (2000) Myanmar (2001-2002), Sri Lanka (2002 - 2003), Thailand (2003 – 2005), Bangladesh (2005-2006). Bhutan asked for the skip. So it's turned to India (2006-2009). In November 2009, Myanmar hosted the 12th Ministerial Meeting and assumed BIMSTEC Chairmanship.

Cooperation with ADB

ADB has become BIMSTEC's development partner since 2005, to undertake a study which is designed to help promote and improve transport infrastructure and logistic among the

BIMSTEC countries. So far, ADB has already finished the project so called BIMSTEC Transport Infrastructure and Logistic Study (BTILS). The final report of the said study from ADB has already been conveyed to all members and being awaited for the feedback. Other fields of cooperation will be designed later on.

BIMSTEC Centre

At the Sixth BIMSTEC Ministerial Meeting on 8 February 2004 in Phuket, Ministers endorsed the setting up of a Technical Support Facility (TSF). As reflected in the Ministerial Joint Statement, this Technical Support Facility would “serve the BIMSTEC Working Group (BWG) and to coordinate BIMSTEC activities, including those of the BIMSTEC Chamber of Commerce, for a trial period of two years”. The decision by the Ministers was based upon the recommendation proposed by BIMSTEC Senior Officials who met in Bangkok during 17-19 September 2003. On this particular item, the SOM had with them a draft report prepared by Mr. David Oldfield, an ESCAP consultant, on “Towards Setting up a BIMSTEC Technical Support Facility and Permanent Secretariat: Considerations and Options”. The report recommended that a TSF should be set up in Bangkok and would initially serve just the BWG during the trial period of 2 years.

Since the Establishment of the Permanent Secretariat is awaited to consider in the 2nd Summit, which will be held on 12-13 November 2008 in India, Thailand had already extended the contract of the BIMSTEC Centre for another year from June 2007 - May 2008. So far, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand had recently extended the contract for another year from 1 June 2008 – 31 May 2009

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation:

History

In January 1989, Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke called for more effective economic cooperation across the Pacific Rim region. This led to the first meeting of APEC in the Australian capital Canberra in November, chaired by Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Gareth Evans. Attended by political ministers from twelve countries, the meeting concluded with commitments for future annual meetings in Singapore and South Korea.The initial proposal was opposed by countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) which instead proposed the East Asia Economic Caucus which would exclude non-Asian countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The plan was opposed and strongly criticised by Japan and the United States.The first APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting occurred in 1993 when U.S. president Bill Clinton, after discussions with Australian prime minister Paul Keating, invited the heads of government from member economies to a summit on Blake Island. He believed it would help bring the stalled Uruguay Round of trade talks on track. At the meeting, some leaders called for continued reduction of barriers to trade and investment, envisioning a community in the Asia-Pacific region that might promote prosperity through cooperation. The APEC Secretariat, based in Singapore, was established to coordinate the activities of the organisation.

Member economy (name as used in APEC) Date of accession Australia 1989 Brunei 1989

 Canada 1989 Indonesia 1989 Japan 1989 Republic of Korea 1989 Malaysia 1989 New Zealand 1989 Philippines 1989 Singapore 1989 Thailand 1989 United States 1989 Chinese Taipei[2] 1991 Hong Kong, China[3] 1991 People's Republic of China[4] 1991 Mexico 1993 Papua New Guinea 1993 Chile 1994 Peru 1998 Russia 1998 Vietnam 1998

APEC's Three Pillars

To meet the Bogor Goals, APEC carries out work in three main areas:

1. Trade and Investment Liberalisation 2. Business Facilitation 3. Economic and Technical Cooperation

APEC and Trade Liberalisation

According to the organization itself, when APEC was established in 1989 average trade barriers in the region stood at 16.9 percent, but had been reduced to 5.5% in 2004.[12]

APEC's Business Facilitation Efforts

APEC has long been at the forefront of reform efforts in the area of business facilitation. Between 2002-2006 the costs of business transactions across the region was reduced by 6 percent, thanks to the APEC Trade Facilitation Action Plan (TFAPI). Between 2007 and 2010, APEC hopes to achieve an additional 5 percent reduction in business transaction costs. To this end, a new Trade Facilitation Action Plan has been endorsed. According to a 2008 research brief published by the World Bank as part of its Trade Costs and Facilitation Project, increasing transparency in the region's trading system is critical if APEC is to meet its Bogor Goal targets.[13] The APEC Business Travel Card, a travel document for visa-free business travel within the region is one of the concrete measures to facilitate business. In May 2010 Russia joined the scheme, thus completing the circle. [14]

Proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific

APEC is considering the prospects and options for a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) which would include all member economies of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Since 2006, the APEC Business Advisory Council, promoting the theory that a free trade area has the best chance of converging the member nations and ensuring stable economic growth under free trade, has lobbied for the creation of a high-level task force to study and develop a plan for a free trade area. The proposal for a FTAAP arose due to the lack of progress in the Doha round of World Trade Organization negotiations, and as a way to overcome the 'spaghetti bowl' effect created by overlapping and conflicting elements of free trade agreements between members - there are as many as 60 free trade agreements and 117 being negotiated in Southeast Asia and the Asia-Pacific region.[15][15][16] [17][17] The FTAAP is more ambitious in scope than the Doha round, which limits itself to reducing trade restrictions. The FTAAP would create a free trade zone that would considerably expand commerce and economic growth in the region.[15][17] The economic expansion and growth in trade could exceed the expectations of other regional free trade areas such as the ASEAN Plus Three (ASEAN + China, Japan, and South Korea).[18] Some criticisms include that the diversion of trade within APEC members would create trade imbalances, market conflicts and complications with nations of other regions.[17] The development of the FTAAP is expected to take many years, involving essential studies, evaluations and negotiations between member economies.[15] It is also affected by the absence of political will and popular agitations and lobbying against free trade in domestic politics

APEC Business Advisory Council

The APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) was created by the APEC Economic Leaders in November 1995 with the aim of providing advice to the APEC Economic Leaders on ways to achieve the Bogor Goals and other specific business sector priorities, and to provide the business perspective on specific areas of cooperation.

Each economy nominates up to three members from the private sector to ABAC. These business leaders represent a wide range of industry sectors.

ABAC provides an annual report to APEC Economic Leaders containing recommendations to improve the business and investment environment in the Asia-Pacific region, and outlining business views about priority regional issues.

ABAC is also the only non-governmental organisation that is on the official agenda of the APEC Economic Leader’s Meeting.

Criticism

APEC has been criticized for failing to clearly define itself or serve a useful purpose. According to the organisation, it is "the premier forum for facilitating economic growth, cooperation, trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region" established to "further enhance economic growth and prosperity for the region and to strengthen the Asia-Pacific community."[36] However, whether it has accomplished anything constructive remains debatable.[37]

Gulf Cooperation Council [GCC]

The Gulf Cooperation Council [GCC] was established in an agreement concluded on 25 May 1981 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia between: Bahrain,

Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE. These countries declared that the GCC is established in view of the special relations between them, their similar political systems based on Islamic beliefs, joint destiny and common objectives. The GCC is a regional common market with a defense planning council as well. The geographic proximity of the these countries and their general adoption of free trade economic policies are factors that encouraged them to establish the GCC. Based on their conviction about the connected nature of their security and that an aggression against any one of them is deemed an aggression against all of them, cooperation in the military field has received the attention of the GCC states. Such conviction stems from the facts of geopolitics and faith in one destiny. Moreover, the security challenges in an unstable regional environment, like the Gulf area, imposes on the GCC States coordination of their policies and mobilization of their capabilities.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was formed in 1981 to confront their security challenges collectively. The immediate objective was to protect themselves from the threat posed by the Iran-Iraq War and Iranian-inspired activist Islamism (also seen as fundamentalism). In a series of meetings, chiefs of staff and defense ministers of the gulf states developed plans for mutual defense and launched efforts to form a joint command and a joint defense network.

Ground and air units of the six member states carried out several multilateral exercises between 1983 and 1987 under the code name of Peninsula Shield. Military assistance, funded mainly by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, was extended to Bahrain for up-to- date fighter aircraft and a modern air base, and to Oman to improve its defensive capability at the Strait of Hormuz. The GCC planned to integrate naval and ground radar systems and to create a combined air control and warning system based on Saudi AWACS aircraft. Problems of compatibility with different communication and electronic systems, however, delayed the introduction of these programs.

In 1984 the GCC defense ministers agreed on the creation of a two-brigade (10,000-man) Peninsula Shield Force. This joint intervention force was based in Saudi Arabia near King Khalid Military City at Hafar al Batin under the command of a Saudi officer. In addition to a headquarters staff, the force consisted of one infantry brigade of about 5,000 men with elements from all GCC states in 1992. Its mission, however, had not been publicly defined. It was not clear, for example, whether the joint force would have authority to intervene in a domestic emergency. The force could be enlarged at a time of threat; it was apparently reinforced prior to the Persian Gulf War in 1991 but did not take part in the war as a distinct unit.

In March 1991, after the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, the six members of the GCC, together with Egypt and Syria, declared their intention to establish a deterrent force to protect Kuwait, with Egypt and Syria to provide the bulk of the troops and the GCC states to provide

the financing. The plan subsequently encountered a series of setbacks. At year's end, there appeared little chance that the Arab deterrent force would be installed. In the meantime, Kuwait had succeeded in obtaining security commitments from the United States and Britain and arranged for the prepositioning of United States military equipment. The GCC States seek to build up their defence forces according to a common conception. In this context, they have unified operational procedures, training, and military curricula. They also endeavour to accomplish compatibility of their military systems. Moreover the armed forces of the GCC States carry out joint military exercises with the Peninsula Shield Force, as well as joint air and sea manoeuvres.

Among the important achievements in the military field is the creation of the Peninsula Shield Force in 1982, which incorporates the credibility of the GCC will. Another important achievement was the resolution taken during Kuwait summit in 1997, which entailed to link the GCC Member States with a military communication network for early warning. Non-tariff barriers to trade

Non-tariff barriers to trade (NTBs) are trade barriers that restrict imports but are not in the usual form of a tariff. Some common examples of NTB's are anti-dumping measures and countervailing duties, which, although they are called "non-tariff" barriers, have the effect of tariffs once they are enacted.

Their use has risen sharply after the WTO rules led to a very significant reduction in tariff use. Some non-tariff trade barriers are expressly permitted in very limited circumstances, when they are deemed necessary to protect health, safety, or sanitation, or to protect depletable natural resources. In other forms, they are criticized as a means to evade free trade rules such as those of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the European Union (EU), or North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that restrict the use of tariffs.

Six Types of Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade

Specific Limitations on Trade: Quotas Import Licensing requirements Proportion restrictions of foreign to domestic goods (local content requirements) Minimum import price limits Embargoes Customs and Administrative Entry Procedures: Valuation systems Antidumping practices Tariff classifications Documentation requirements Fees Standards: Standard disparities Intergovernmental acceptances of testing methods and standards Packaging, labeling, and marking Government Participation in Trade: Government procurement policies Export subsidies Countervailing duties

Domestic assistance programs Charges on imports: Prior import deposit subsidies Administrative fees Special supplementary duties Import credit discriminations Variable levies Border taxes Others: Voluntary export restraints Orderly marketing agreements

Examples of Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade

Non-tariff barriers to trade can be:

Import bans General or product-specific quotas Rules of Origin Quality conditions imposed by the importing country on the exporting countries Sanitary and phyto-sanitary conditions Packaging conditions Labeling conditions Product standards Complex regulatory environment Determination of eligibility of an exporting country by the importing country Determination of eligibility of an exporting establishment (firm, company) by the importing country. Additional trade documents like Certificate of Origin, Certificate of Authenticity etc. Occupational safety and health regulation Employment law Import licenses State subsidies, procurement, trading, state ownership Export subsidies Fixation of a minimum import price Product classification Quota shares Foreign exchange market controls and multiplicity Inadequate infrastructure "Buy national" policy Over-valued currency Intellectual property laws (patents, copyrights) Restrictive licenses Seasonal import regimes Corrupt and/or lengthy customs procedures

40 YEARS OF CORRUPTION IN NIGERIA

When Nigeria gained independence from Great Britain in 1960, there were hopes that the country might emerge as an economic heavyweight in Africa. Not only was Nigeria Africa’s

most populous country, but it was also blessed with abundant natural resources, particularly oil, which rose sharply in value in the 1970s following two rounds of oil price increases engineered by the organization of petroleum exporting countries (OPEC). Between 1970 and2000, Nigeria earned more than $300 billion from the scale of oil, but at the end of this period it remained one of the poorest countries in the world. In 2000, gross national product per capita was just $300; 40percent of the adult population was illiterate, life expectancy at birth was only 50 years, and the country was begging for relief on $30 billion in debt. The human development index compiled by the United Nations ranked Nigeria 151 out of 174 countries covered.

What went wrong? Although there is no simple answer, a number of factors seem to have conspired to damage economic activity in Nigeria. The country is composed of several competing ethnic, tribal, and religious groups, and the conflict between them has limited political stability and led to political strife, including a brutal civil war in the 1970s. with the legitimacy of the government always in question, political leaders often purchased support by legitimizing bribes and by raiding the national treasury to reward allies. Civilian rule after independence was followed by a series of military dictatorships, each of which seemed more corrupt and inept than the last.