A Non-Trade Condition

If the nations of the world were to suddenly cut off all trade with one another, technological advancement and all other energy-powered operations of the United States will cease. This is also true in the case of China as the second largest energy-consuming economy in the world. The energy demands of China is greatly rooted to its increasing economic growth and with is projected annual GDP of 6. 6% per year until 2020, the energy need of the country will relatively increase through years (World Bank, 1997).

As such, Middle Eastern countries will play significant roles in China’s economy as the main source of oil and petroleum in the world. This is consistent with the trading practices that have transpired between China and the countries of Iraq, Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia (Strecker, 2000). Recently, China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), the largest state-owned oil company in China paid US$4. 18 billion to acquire PetroKazakhstan, a Canadian oil company that also trades in New York along with the construction of the 614-mile pipeline project that will run from Kazakhstan to China (Marquardt, 2005).

It was reported that the acquisition of CNPC for the fields in Kazakhstan and Venezuela and the company's exploitation of politically favorable circumstances to win deals in Iraq and Sudan made evident the Chinese government's priorities regarding energy security (East European Energy Report, 1997). Methods Governments Use to Promote and Restrict International Trade One of the state’s tasks is to regulate the flow of trade and commerce within its borders (Wilson, 1993).

The economy is the core driving life of a country. The state thus must ensure that its economy is healthy and vibrant. Those which hinder the full-development of the country’s economy should be removed. The reduction of tariffs and non-tariff barriers poses as an opportunity for countries seeking economic enlightenment. Countries that see business opportunities in other particular countries may not have much difficulty anymore in exporting their products.

Furthermore, because of capital liberalization, there has been a dramatic increase in the movement of both short-term and long-term capital between countries (Grimwade, 2000). Japan, China, Singapore, South Korea and the rest of the members of ASEAN) are pursuing the liberalization of trade in the Asia-Pacific region so as to gain international economic stability as well as to enable them to stand their ground in deciding the fate of their individual economies.

Proponent countries of this Asia-Pacific third sub-regional international financial block have started a region-wide system of currency swaps, surveillance mechanisms to prepare against future economic crises, a common currency basket (euro) as well as joint intervention agreements between neighboring countries and other preferred nations outside Asia resulting to an Asian Monetary Fund (AMF) (Bergsten, 2000). However, with the unstoppable onslaught of globalization, the major world trend is for cheaper goods to swamp world markets, posing threats to local manufacturers.

To effectively and fully serve its constituents, the Parliament of Scandinavia has been passing legislations aimed at continuously upholding and improving the condition of its people. A more recent law passed is the Fair Labour Label (FLL) (a) to control the inflow of foreign products by putting strict regulations on imported products, and (b) to improve the working conditions of laborers by ensuring that overseas companies observe the FLL specifications involving the working conditions and the benefits of workers.

Such legislature was interpreted as relevant trade strategy for the Scandinavian government to indirectly restrict trade activities that it is involved with by (1) regulating the influx of cheap goods coming from countries with cheap labor such as the China and most of the Third World, and at the same time (2) to improve the working conditions of laborers in the Third World (McBride & Wiseman, 2000).

References:

Agarwal et al. (1985). E. C. Trade Policies Towards Associated Developing Countries: Barriers to Success. Kiel Study 193, Kiel University. Bergsten, F. (2000 July). Towards a Tripartite World, Economist, 356( 8179), 23. Cline, W. et al. (1978). Trade Negotiations in the Tokyo Round -- Quantitative Assessment. Washington, D. C. Cosgrove, C. (1994, June 22). Has the Lome Convention failed ACP trade? (trade between African, Caribbean and Pacific states and the European Community) (Contemporary Issues in World Trade). Journal of International Affairs. Cosgrove-Twitchett C. (1981). Framework for Development: The EEC and the ACP. London: Allen & Unwin.