EU-China textile deal

The announcement during the recent visit of British Prime Minister Tony Blair to China - currently holding the European Union's (EU) rotating presidency - that the stockpiles of Chinese textile products in European warehouses can now be offloaded onto retail shops for sale to the general public, has finally broken a trade impasse.
The dispute revolved around allegations by the EU that the Chinese textile manufacturers had exceeded the quota target for the year. The agreement has not been hailed as particularly long term or, indeed, as one which contains a formula that would guarantee that no such disputes recur.
It was crude by all standards and consisted mainly of an understanding to write off the current garment surplus against next year's import quotas. As expected each of the protagonists in the dispute focused on self interest - the prime motivator of investment decisions and political pressure in establishing trade relations.
The textile manufacturers in France, Italy and Spain brought it home to their governments that a surplus of cheaper textile exports from China would seriously impact on their productivity with a resulting loss of jobs - a politically sensitive issue at all times.
The European retailers who find Chinese textile products easier to sell to their customers wanted the Chinese products released from the warehouses where they had remained for some time, pending an agreement. And it is no secret either that the European consumers prefer Chinese products because of lower costs per unit in comparison to the same products produced in Europe.
Be that as it may, critics argue that quotas are against the principles of free trade that Western governments do not hesitate to espouse in international fora as integral to capitalism, especially when it implies a rise in their sales to third world countries. Within this context Tony Blair did rightly argue that Europe should not ignore long term relationships with China for the sake of short term commercial interest.
In contrast, China as the most significant emerging market for high-end European products offered by companies such as Airbus and Siemens needed to be dealt with delicately by the EU which explains the rationale behind the deal. In turn China, too, does not wish to lose the lucrative European market, hence the deal is likely to benefit all the protagonists. Thus there had to be a give-and-take, though one would have hoped that it would be more long term.
The other issue that has impacted on relations between the EU and China dates back to the Tianenmen Square tragedy and allegations of human rights abuses related to a non-democratic system of government. Taiwan as well as Tibet also periodically featured as areas of discord in China's relations with the West.
These have been dealt with simply by placing an arms embargo and have not yet affected trade relations which benefit all the participants though there are some groups within the EU, like the textile manufacturers, who stand to lose. It is increasingly evident that China is an emerging economic giant and antagonising it may not be the right way forward.
To a lesser extent, the same is being argued with respect to India and all allegations of human rights violations in Kashmir are likewise being ignored. There are thus obvious lessons that Pakistan can learn from this. While it is relevant to note that the present government is focused on economic growth as its primary objective, yet flawed policies as well as nepotism and corruption continue to affect its ability to meet this objective. One would hope for renewed vigour in ushering an era of good governance through a consensus approach instead of trying to marginalize the opposition.