Australia And Apec Essays - International Trade,

Australia And Apec Economics assignment: APEC When the ?Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation? (APEC) was established in 1989 in response to the growing interdependence among Asia-Pacific economies, its goal was to advance Asia-Pacific economic dynamism and sense of community. When the cooperation was established, there were 12 founding member economies, namely Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Republic of the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and the United States. Since then there has been more countries/economies joining APEC. APEC has come a long way since 1989. It has built steadily on the efforts of the past and looks forward to further positive progress. The initial years of APEC were focused largely on exchange of views and project based initiatives. As needs of the member economies has evolved into a forum of higher purpose: to build the Asia-Pacific community through achieving economic growth and development through trade and economic cooperation. In the Osaka meeting in 1994, APEC leaders adopted the Osaka Action Agenda, which firmly established three pillars of APEC activities: Trade and investment liberalization, business facilitation and economic-technical cooperation. Its main objective is to develop a region-wide, free trade and investment regime by the year 2000. APEC operates by consensus. In 1991, members committed themselves to conducting their activities and work programs on the basis of open dialogue with equal respect for the views of all participants. The APEC chair, which rotates annually among members, is responsible for hosting the annual ministerial meeting of foreign and economic ministers. At the 1989 Canberra Ministerial Meeting, it was agreed that it would be appropriate that every alternative ministerial meeting be held in an ASEAN economy/country. Senior Official Meeting (SOM) are held regularly prior to every ministerial meeting. APEC senior officials make recommendations to the ministers and carry out their decisions. They oversee and coordinate, with approval from Ministers, the budgets and work programs of the APEC for a. Mr. Fischer, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, said Australia's IAP (Individual Action Plan) would address the main trade liberalization issues of tariffs, non- tariffs, investment and services, although the 1996 IAP would not pre-judge the outcomes of the existing and previously announced reviews into the passenger motor vehicle, textile clothing and footwear and sugar sectors. Other elements of the IAP deal wit the important trade facilitation issues such as standards and customs procedures, intellectual property rights, competition policy, and mobility of business people and deregulation. ?Australia's plan is fully consistent with the general principals of the Osaka Action Agenda agreed by that leaders in November 1995, including comprehensives,? Mr. Fischer said. ?Australia's done a great deal to liberalize our market consistent with APEC goals, and we expect others to match our record. The government will pursue vigorously Australian trade and investment priorities within APEC,? Mr. Fischer stated. Australia's IAP address the objectives and guidelines of the Osaka Action Plan in a comprehensive manner: Tariffs Australia's IAP includes reduction in applied tariffs to the year 2000. Table: Tariff Reductions in the APEC region Simple Average Applied Tariff 1988 1993 1997 Australia * 15.6 7.0 5.3 Brunei 3.9 3.9 2.0 Canada (*) 3.7 2.4 1.3^ Chile 19.9 11 11 China 39.5 37.5 17 Hong Kong 0 0 0 Indonesia 18.1 17 11.7 Japan * 4.3 3.4 4.6 Korea 19.2 11.6 7.9^ Malaysia 13.6 12.8 7.8^ Mexico * 10.5 12.6 9.8^ New Zealand 14.9 8.5 5.2 PNG NA NA 23^ Philippines 27.9 23.5 12.1 Singapore 0.3 0.4 0 Chinese Taipei 12.6 8.9 8.6 Thailand 31.2 37.8 17 United States (*) 4.2 4.2 3.4^ Note: Does not include calculation of non-ad valorum tariffs Indicates trade-weighted advantage ^1996 data Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1998-99/c99cib05.htm Australia's applied simple tariff has fallen from 15.6% in 1998 to 6.1% in 1996 and will reduce further to 4.5% by the year 2000. Australia is also hoping to have tariffs reduced to zero in numerous sectors of our economy by the year 2000. Sectors Selected for Early Voluntary Sectoral Liberalism Sector EVSL Proposal Toys Progressive reduction to zero of tariffs on toys, preferably by 2000. Elimination of unjustified non-tariff barriers. Economic and technical cooperation Gems and jewelry Elimination of trade-restrictive measures on these products (phased out by 2005), which include pearls, diamonds, silver, gold, platinum, jewelry, goldsmiths' and silversmiths' wares. Environmental Goods and Services Elimination of tariffs by 2003 on environmental goods and liberalization of environmental services. Work on non-tariffs barriers. Economic and technical cooperation. Food Further impetus to trade

Bleeding Kansas, Book Review Essays

Bleeding Kansas, Book Review Essays Bleeding Kansas, Book Review Essays Civil War History 26 November, 2013 Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era (Nicole Etcheson) Bleeding Kansas is the term referring to the conflict on the Kansas-Missouri border as to whether the territory of Kansas was to be permitted as a proslavery state or an abolitionist state before and during the Civil War. This conflict was waged on the border-towns of both states and atrocities were committed by both parties. Missouri was to be a slave state based on the Missouri Compromise, which was formed to help alleviate the pressures of the rising slave question in the United States. When the Kansas-Nebraska Act was put into place, it gave the settlers of these two territories popular sovereignty as to whether they would become abolitionist or proslavery states. Bloodshed ensued when agreements could not be made on the position of the territory of Kansas in this debate. The Missouri Compromise was put into action to equal the number of slave and free states in the United States. From this compromise: Maine would become a free state, Missouri would become a slave state, and the Great Plains' territories would become free states (with the exception of the Arkansas Territory, which would become proslavery). It is said that the compromise withheld the United States from plunging into Civil War in 1820, until it was repealed with the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 gave the people of these two territories the right to decide the position of the states when they would be admitted into the United States. The passage of this act formed the Republican party who opposed the idea that the wealthy land/slave owners of the south could simply purchase land and vote accordingly to hold these â€Å"properties.† Abolitionists from the east poured into the state to quickly claim land, while Missourians who wanted the state to be proslavery did the same. Both factions claimed land before they even saw the soil, pointing out claims on a map. When they arrived, however, some claims were already made by the other party. The purpose of these claims were to gain a political advantage over the other to change the position of the state towards slavery via votes. Many Missourians laid four logs as a foundation of a house and returned to Missouri until after the Spring harvest, then would return to build. The population of the territory before the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was less than 800 people. Nine months after the Kansas-Nebraska Act came about, the population rose to over 8,000, many settling on the Kansas-Missouri border. The first governor of the Kansas territory was a Democrat named Andrew H. Reeder, appointed by President Andrew Pierce. He claimed that, in order to vote on the matter, you must live, and continue to live in Kansas even after the vote was decided. Reeder supported an election to elect someone to be represented in Congress, and J. W. Whitfield won by a landslide. The vote is said to have been biased because of the Missourian presence at ballot boxes and the deterring of abolitionists from voting by force. Abolitionists were outraged and feared rule by the Missourian proslavery â€Å"ruffians.† The next governor of the territory was Wilson Shannon, a former governor of Ohio. When Missourians came across the border to siege Lawrence (abolitionist town), Shannon gave the people of the area the right raise a militia to thwart off the attack. With aid from the winter cold they chased the Missourians out of Lawrence. The aggression/retreat of the Missourians at Lawrence was named, â€Å"the Wakarusa War.† It proved to the abolitionists of the state that they did not have to be repressed by the people of another state and could make the state a free state. Thomas Barber was credited as a martyr for the abolitionist cause, and made the