Kodak to shed 600 uk jobs
Photography equipment maker Kodak is to cut 600 jobs in the UK and close a factory in Nottinghamshire. About 350 jobs will be lost following the closure of the factory at Annesley, Nottinghamshire, while 250 posts will go at its site in Harrow, north London. The layoffs are part of a global restructuring plan that the US-based firm unveiled in January this year.
Kodak has been hit hard by the shift away from traditional camera film to the use of digital cameras. Kodak currently employs about 3,000 people in the UK.
Kodak announced in January that it planned to shed up to 15,000 jobs worldwide over the next three years as it sought to reposition its business in the digital age. "Today's announcements are driven by fundamental, structural change in the imaging industry worldwide and Kodak's intent to transform the company and remain the leader in imaging," said Peter Blackwell, managing director of Kodak in the UK. "The simple fact is that customer and consumer preferences are changing and demand for traditional products such as film and paper has fallen with the rising popularity of digital photography."
Trade unions said they were "deeply disappointed" at Kodak's plans and were surprised at the scale of the job losses. The redundancy proposals, they said, went against Kodak's policy of moving production out of the US. Union leaders said they did not accept the company's rationale for closing the Nottingham site nor for the jettisoning of jobs in Harrow. "Both unions and shop stewards are fully committed to supporting every single one of our members in Harrow and Annesley," said Joe McGowan. "Not one union member in Kodak will be forced to 'walk the plank' because of the company's proposals," he added.
The closure of the Annesley film plant will take place in a year's time, while the Harrow job cuts are set to be made by March 2005.
10
11
BBC N E W S , 27 . 08 . 04 .
World Trade Organization
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international body whose purpose is to promote free trade by persuading countries to abolish import tariffs and other barriers. As such, it has become closely associated with globalisation.
The WTO is the only international agency overseeing the rules of international trade. It administers and polices existing and new free trade agreements, settles trade disputes between governments and organises trade
negotiations. WTO decisions are absolute and every member must abide by its rulings. So, when the US and the European Union are in dispute over bananas or beef, it is the WTO which acts as judge and jury. WTO members are empowered by the organisation to enforce its decisions by imposing trade sanctions against countries that have breached the WTO rules.
Based in Geneva, the WTO was set up in 1995, replacing another international organisation known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt). Gatt was formed in 1948 when 23 countries signed an agreement to reduce customs tariffs. The WTO has a much broader scope than Gatt. Whereas Gatt regulated trade in merchandise goods, the WTO also covers trade in services, such as telecommunications and banking. Membership of the WTO now stands at 147 countries. China formally joined the body in December 2001 after a 15-year battle. Russia wants admission, but must first convince the EU and US that it has reformed business practices.
The highest body of the WTO is the Ministerial Conference. This meets every two years and, among other things, elects the organisation's chief executive - the director-general - and oversees the work of the General Council. The General Council is in charge of the day-to-day running of the WTO and is made up of ambassadors from member states who also serve on various subsidiary and specialist committees. Budget: 125 million US dollars. Staff: 601. Key players: USA, the EU, Japan.
A former Thai deputy prime minister and commerce minister, Mr Supachai is the first WTO director-general to come from a developing country. He is a respected economist, and played a key role in leading Thailand out of the Asian currency crisis. Mr Supachai was born in 1946. He studied economics in the UK and in the Netherlands and was elected to the Thai parliament in 1986. His manner is described as thoughtful, cautious and diplomatic. He is known in his native country as Dr Sup.
Mr Supachai began his three-year term as head of the WTO in September 2002. He ran for the post in 1999, but the US opposed his candidacy and forced a compromise under which he and his predecessor, New Zealand's Mike Moore, shared the six year term. Though he is a long-time supporter of free trade, Mr Supachai contends that developing countries have not got a fair deal in previous trade talks. He has called for the benefits of free trade to be evenly spread, rather than concentrated in advanced economies.
The WTO has been the focal point of criticism from people who are worried about the effects of free trade and economic globalisation. Opposition to the WTO centres on four main points:-WTO is too powerful, in that it can in effect compel sovereign states to change laws and regulations by declaring these to be in violation of free trade rules.-WTO is run by the rich for the rich and does not give significant weight to the problems of developing countries. For example, rich countries have
not opened their markets to agricultural products or textiles and clothing imports from poor countries.-WTO is indifferent to the impact of free trade on workers' rights, child labour, the environment and health.-WTO lacks democratic accountability, in that its hearings on trade disputes are closed to the public and the media. Supporters of the WTO argue that it is democratic, in that its rules were written by its member states, many of whom are democracies, who also select its leadership. They also argue that, by expanding world trade, the WTO in fact helps to raise living standards around the world.
12
13
USA TODAY, 16 . 11 . 04 .
Who needs the WTO?
The World Trade Organisation has done little to boost free trade, a leading academic researcher has said.
Professor Andrew Rose of the University of California at Berkeley says that membership of the WTO does little to increase trade flows. In the past 50 years, world trade has soared, growing more than 20 times, twice as fast as the world economy has grown. Up to now, economists and officials at the WTO have assumed that the six rounds of world trade talks, which resulted in a massive lowering of tariff barriers to let in cheap imports, played an important role in this process.
According to Professor Rose's study, covering 175
countries between 1950 and 2000, there was no correlation between a country's membership of the WTO (which used to be called Gatt) and an increase in the volume of its trade. The argument comes at a difficult time for the WTO, which is struggling to implement the latest round of trade talks, launched some years ago at Doha, Qatar. Rich governments pledged at that time to make sure that any new trade deal would benefit the world's poor countries. But the new WTO trade boss, Supachai Panitchpakdi, faces an uphill struggle getting them to deliver, especially on agriculture.
Professor Rose says that the reason for the lack of correlation is that even when countries join the WTO, they are not necessarily obliged to open up their markets. He cites the example of India, which was a founding member of the international trade organisation but continued to raise its tariff barriers for many years. In contrast, China, although not admitted to the WTO until 2001, opened its economy to Western investment in the 1980s and saw a huge growth in trade. And, despite the effectiveness of negotiations aimed at lowering tariffs, Professor Rose says that all kinds of other trade barriers (which may be consistent with WTO rules) are still used to keep out goods which threaten livelihoods. The recent steel tariffs imposed by the US on many of its trading partners, in order to prevent job losses at domestic steel plants, is a recent example.
Although Professor Rose says he personally believes free trade benefits countries, he also agrees with his colleague Dani Rodrik that it is hard to reconcile the existence of nation states, democracy, and complete international economic integration. Professor Rose argues that it is economic integration - or globalisation - that is far less complete than we have been led to believe, with all sorts of barriers, especially to developing country exports to rich countries. His research also shows that certain types of trade deals do have huge benefits.
In particular, regional free trade deals, such as those between EU states, or between the US, Canada, and Mexico (members of the Nafta trade bloc), do boost to trade. And currency unions, in his view, have just as big an effect - he predicts that the creation of the eurozone will drive further European economic integration. Other things that facilitate trade between countries are a common language, a history of colonisation, and a common
border. Professor Rose says that trade deals specifically aimed at helping developing countries, such as the generalised system of preferences introduced in the 1960s, can also help lower trade barriers.
In broad terms, Professor Rose's work points to the limits of globalisation. Despite the rapid rise in trade volumes, world trade is far from "free", and there are even greater restrictions on the movement of capital, and especially labour. In the late 19th century, the first great wave of globalisation transformed the
transatlantic economy, leading to the rise of the US as an economic superpower. Now, a similar process might be at work in East Asia. But as the economic historian Nick Crafts has pointed out, the spread of globalisation has always been uneven. Large, well-resourced countries with growing populations and internal markets, such as the US and now China, may be better placed to take advantage of the opportunities provided by globalisation than their smaller rivals.
14
15
E X P R E S S , 12 . 11 . 04 .
World trade talks reach agreement
World Trade Organization members have agreed a revised draft deal that aims to revive stalled talks on freeing up trade between rich and poor nations.
Key WTO members accepted proposals to cut the subsidies wealthy countries give their farmers for exports. The deal should reduce barriers to international trade and so, it is hoped, lift millions out of poverty. Brazil's Foreign Minister, Celso Amorim, said the WTO agreement was good for trade and good for social justice. "This is the beginning of the end for farm subsidies. Export subsidies will be
eliminated first," he said. The agreement, agreed late on Saturday in Geneva, puts the so-called Doha round of trade talks back on track, after similar talks in Cancun last September ended in deadlock. The Geneva talks were extended for an extra 24 hours after the 147 WTO members failed to reach an agreement by the end of Friday, the original deadline.
US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said the deal was "a crucial step for world trade". But even with the latest agreement, the details will still have to be hammered out, and that could take at least another couple of years.
After hours of talks, key WTO nations, including the US, the EU, Brazil and Japan, agreed to eliminate export subsidies at a date to be set, to limit other subsidies and lower tariff barriers. In return, wealthier nations, among them the EU's members, are insisting on better access to markets in developing nations. France, the biggest beneficiary of EU agricultural subsidies, has been highly critical of moves to cut support for farmers. Japan and Switzerland were also concerned about the removal of subsidies for some of their agricultural producers. But EU Agricultural Commissioner Franz Fischler said the EU could "broadly accept" the deal.
"The liberalization process will put additional economic pressure on our farmers," said Swiss President and Economics Minister Joseph Deiss. But he welcomed the plan nonetheless: "This will be a key step for the opening of the world economy and this will be of benefit for all countries." According to the World Bank, a successful final deal could add $520bn to the world economy by 2015, if rich and developing countries cut their tariffs. Most of the benefit would, the World Bank believes, go to poorer countries.
T I M E E U R O P E , 18 . 11 . 04 .