A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Wednesday, May 8, 2019
Trust – or lack of – is the underlying reason global trade is falling apart
Traders and financial professionals work at the opening bell on the
floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), May 6, 2019 in New York
City. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped over 360 points at the
open on Monday morning after U.S. President Donald Trump said that the
U.S. will raise tariffs on goods imported from China. Source: Drew
Angerer /Getty Images/North America/AFP

7 May 2019
THE global trade system is under greater stress than at any other time
since its inception. The most significant trade war in almost a century
lumbers on, tit-for-tat trade restrictions are becoming increasingly
commonplace, and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) appears incapable of
restoring order.
Discussion on how things have gone so far off-track has focused on a
number of factors, including the frequent violation of trade rules, and
the unilateral approach to
trade actions taken by the current US administration. While these
factors are undoubtedly playing a prominent role, there is another issue
— one that does not appear in the text of any trade agreement or on the
negotiating agenda of any set of trade talks — arguably of equal if not
greater importance.
The issue is trust.
For most of the post-war era, there has been a strong sense of trust
among trade partners that they shared a deep philosophical commitment to
free trade and a rules-based trade system. The nations that came
together in Bretton Woods in 1948 to lay the foundation for an open
trade system believed that their individual national interests would be
best served by a cooperative trade system. This would be held together
not just by rules but also by a commitment to the ‘spirit’ and intent
that underpinned the rules.
The expectation was that countries would not merely fulfil their
specifically enumerated obligations but would also endeavour to go above
and beyond, reflecting a belief in the collective benefits of free
trade.
These pioneering nations felt they were bound together in a collegial
and mutually-beneficial endeavour. That sense of commonality and trust
probably shone brightest in the earlier years, when painful memories of
the disastrous results of 1930s protectionism were still fresh and the
countries involved were more homogeneous.

Chinese Vice Premier Liu He (R), US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
(C) and Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer pose before they proceed
to their meeting at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing on May 1,
2019. Source: Andy Wong/Pool/AFP
This sentiment proved remarkably resilient and endured over subsequent
decades as dozens of additional countries opted to join the GATT
(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and its successor, the WTO.
All of this might seem a bit sentimental or perhaps even naïve. But it
is a big part of the invisible glue that has held the trade system
together for seven decades.
But today, trust and long-term commitment to the collective benefit of a rules-based system are breaking down. Countries
are taking more of a short-term transactional approach to their trade
relationships, rules are seemingly malleable, and the underlying
‘spirit’ of free trade is rapidly dissipating. The resulting erosion of
trust is one of the reasons that the trade system appears to be in
danger of fracturing.
The trust that previously existed meant that trade rules could be
considerably looser and less comprehensive. Coverage of ‘behind the
border’ regulatory regimes in trade agreements was unnecessary when
there was trust that trade-related regulations would develop and be
implemented in a spirit of non-discrimination and openness.
Dispute settlement mechanisms did not need to be stringent when parties
trusted their counterpart’s commitment to follow the rules. Trade
concepts — such as special and differential treatment or exemptions from the rules for national security considerations — could be left vague due to the trust that such provisions would not be abused.
One need not be a cynic to recognise that those levels of trust simply
no longer exist today. And rebuilding the trust that traditionally
existed in the trade system might — unfortunately — be impossible. If
that is the case, trade relationships and agreements will have to be
formulated accordingly in order to shore-up the widening fissures.
Although trust is impossible to legislate or quantify, the dissolution
of trust currently underway is self-evident and profound. Nothing will
sabotage support for open trade faster than a sense that, as trust
fades, trade rules can be evaded and gaps in trade rules can be used as a
pretext for discrimination or restrictions.
Stephen Olson is a Research Fellow
at the Hinrich Foundation, Hong Kong. He is also an Adjunct Associate
Professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST).
This article is republished from East Asia Forum under a Creative Commons licence.



