Question

Question 1

Should international trade be left to private enterprise only, or should governments openly manage it to benefit poorer nations?

Question 2

Would you have argued on behalf of the United States or the EU? Explain.

Question 3

What are the pros and cons of each side's arguments?

You are a member of a World Trade Organization task force that is reviewing the nine-year banana conflict between the United States and the European Union (EU). The EU was giving preferential treatment to banana exporters from Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific island nations. But the United States challenged what it saw as unfair trading practices and the World Trade Organization agreed. The U.S. action gained support from global fruit companies Dole, Chiquita, and Del Monte, which account for nearly two-thirds of the fruit traded worldwide. The EU argued it was supporting struggling economies for which bananas make up a large portion of their income.

Citation References.

Answer 1

Should international trade be left to private enterprise only, or should governments openly manage it to benefit poorer nations?

The international trade should not be governed completely in the hands of private enterprise as there is a chance of creating a monopoly by these private organizations In case of free trade in the international trade, then the benefits can also be provided to the poorer section of the country by the government. But in case of private enterprise, the main focus will be only on profit generation and improved production yet the government can put some restrictions on the operations of these enterprises. The system of private enterprise was managed by the fascist governments of Europe in the past century and at the same time, the government also had the control over the business. This created the chances of corruption and the control of government over those nations which are treading exclusively though there can be a feeling that these countries are trying o help the poor economies but in fact, these are exploiting them.

Would you have argued on behalf of the United States or the EU? Explain.

. I would have favoured the United States as there is no attempt to create the monopoly in the banana industry and thus they have the preferential attitude towards come certain nations. There can be lesser chances of corruption and government control. Almost every individual gets benefited from the free enterprise system and it will facilitate the productive outcomes. On the other hand, greater control by the government provides the benefits only with the handful at the expense of the majority. This will provide the impetus for those who get benefited from this set p and thus they will be involved in lobbying and supporting such a system. This is the reasons why the free enterprise is always promoted everywhere but in reality, they favour the private, unfree enterprise.” Initially I was planning to support EU as I had an impression that these countries are helping poor nations but in fact, they are ending up hurting these nations as these countries are depending more on the preferential treatment

What are the pros and cons of each side’s argument?

Every side has something to prove over other and this is the reason behind the banana wars which was the aggregate of a six long years of dispute related to the trade between USA and EU. Lowering tariff and duties on products and services which are transferred from one country to other can be the main objective of the free trade agreements. Other advantages can be seen as the liberalization of developing countries and motivating the countries to have free trades. On the contrary to this, the issue of corruption can result in these nations if there are some private enterprises. Developing countries might also be affected by this as hey completely depend on the support of other countries.