What Do You Mean By International Commodity Agreements
Principles that are outdated from reality. The havana Charter chapter, which deals with intergovernmental agreements to control goods, included provisions that would have benefited the consumer, including (a) equal representation for import and export countries; (b) the participation of all countries that are “essentially interested in the product concerned”; (c) advertising controls in the form of an annual report; and (d) to ensure increased market opportunities for deliveries from regions where production is most efficient. An international commodity agreement is a commitment by a group of countries to stabilize trade, deliveries and product prices for participating countries. An agreement usually involves consensus on the quantities traded, prices and inventory management. A number of international commodity agreements serve exclusively as forums for information exchange, analysis and political debate. There is a great gap between the principles underlying these provisions and the harsh realities of the agreements that were actually negotiated in the post-war period. The U.S.S.R. continues to vote on the international sugar agreement and the international wheat agreement as an exporting country, although the dynamism of international trade is such that it has recently become a major net importer of both countries. In the present circumstances, the United States, although not itself a member of the ITA, is in fact setting a ceiling for international tin prices by regulating the rate at which tin disposals are produced from that country`s strategic stocks. In the case of wheat, too, the international market was less dominated by IWA than by the oligopolistic pricing practices of the Canadian Wheat Board and the U.S. Commodity Credit Corporation. The membership of a large number of nations in the current international agreements on raw materials can only complicate administrative and decision-making processes, whereas in at least one case – the UK`s decision not to side with the 1953 IWA – the absence of a major wheat-importing country could have had a beneficial effect in moderating the exercise of oligopolistic power.
Historically, U.S. policy on international commodity agreements has been marked by some ambivalence. Until recently, it has only participated in agreements that are of interest to the United States, particularly the international wheat agreement. Even in the case of sugar (where the United States remains a net importer), it has acted more in a producer than among consumers; Too large a gap between domestic and foreign prices would embarrass the continuation of the national sugar control system. From time to time, the United States has co-ordded the idea of a lead and zinc agreement to end an existing system of unilaterally imposed import quotas, which has caused great irritation in trade relations with Mexico, Peru, Australia and Canada. (2) Reasonably stable market share. Since export quotas generally distribute markets in proportion to national shares over a given reference period, difficulties arise when there are sudden or longer-term changes in the shares held by different producing countries. The gradual ouster of U.S. raw cotton by exports from other countries, reinforced by the development of synthetic fibres, prevented the negotiation of an international cotton agreement in the post-war period and the increase in the volume of exports from African countries seriously complicated the negotiations of the 1962 International Coffee Agreement. Preconditions for negotiation.
Empirically, if not theoretically, seems to be among the primary conditions that must be met for an international conference on raw materials to materialize for an agreement: the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), established in 1960, is a special case.