THE U.S. CUSTOMS CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE (CSI):

The Container Security Initiative, or CSI, was officially kicked-off in January of 2002.  The CSI program represents an aggressive attempt by U.S. Customs to greatly improve detection of sea-bound weapons of mass destruction.  CSI involves the posting of Customs officials at foreign ports around the Western Hemisphere and the world in order to allow for the screening of high-risk U.S. bound cargo containers before they even leave their foreign ports of origin. 

So-called “mega ports” handle a great proportion of the world's trade and are the foreign embarkation points for the vast majority of goods shipped to the United States and the world.  Customs initial objective was to implement the CSI program at the world's 20 largest mega ports.  However, due to the high level of interest in the program, Customs officials are now preparing an extended list of CSI-targeted ports.  This new list will add an extra 21 ports in addition to the current 20.  The CSI program's stated goal is "to facilitate detection of potential security concerns at their earliest possible opportunity." In order to achieve this goal, the program consists of four core elements:

 1-     Using automated information to identify and target high-risk containers;

2-     Pre-screening those containers identified as high-risk before they arrive at U.S. ports;

3-     Using detection technology to quickly pre-screen high-risk containers; and

4-     Using smarter, tamper proof containers.

            The CSI program would help to increase security to the U.S. port but also, the transportation may take more time to pass all of the security check process according to new policy. However, safety is priority concerned and the goods in the vessel considered timing. I strongly recommend to continue this policy even transportation have to be delay.  

Taxation of U.S. multinational companies

            

Most of the American corporations were criticized keeping their profits overseas in order to avoid U.S taxes. According to the recent debate about increasing taxes on U.S multinationals, this decision will help creating jobs in U.S. as well as protecting the industry.

            We do not think that this idea has a good shape for American economy. Because it discourage multinationals and companies to invest at home and response to the demand of foreign market, which I think is another protectionist practice made by Obama’s administration (Jay H., 2010).

            Based on a report discussion how U.S. multinational companies strengthen the U.S. economy, it is proven that the expansion of US companies does not reduce a multinational firm’s domestic activities instead it does increase it. In my opinion, U.S. government should not increase taxation of multinational companies.

            To demonstrate, here is an example of case study that was conducted by. It illustrates how porter & Gamble (U.S. multinational) generating over $25 million from its operation throughout the world especially in developing countries. Its global engagement contributes in creation jobs in the U.S. one in five P&G U.S. jobs and two in five Ohio based P&G jobs depends directly on its global business (Matthew J.S., 2009).

            However, if we think about all those U.S. multinationals operating globally, their global engagement will certainly have great benefits for U.S. economy as well as on creation new job opportunity. For this particular reason, It is not appropriate to raise tax on U.S. multinational companies because as republican argue, it will decrease jobs in U.S. private sector. We have to think about the global market and what is good for United State within the next coming years.

           

             In addition, US companies can operate from USA and export its products to other countries. However, US corporations compete against companies from around the world in an increasingly global marketplace, in addition to some demand and cost factors.

            Therefore, US Corporation may often choose to access local markets rather than exporting their products from the United States. By doing so, US operations and workers become more competitive in which they support local jobs and wages, while increasing the profitability for the shareholders in the US.

WTO APPLICATION IN THAILAND

In 1997, the Thai’s government faced with financial crash resulting the severe recession. In order to improve the economic the World Trade Organization (WTO) step over to promote free trade by minimizing trade barriers as follow the objectives below.

-          To assure greater trade liberalization of Thailand’s trading partners with the aim to reduce or eliminate tariff and non tariff measures;

-          To improve the effectiveness of the rules governing international trade to bring about fairness and transparency in the world market’

-          To prevent any new trade barrier that could obstruct Thailand’s international trade.

The main obligations of Thailand under the WTO which have affected Thai legislation can be as follow:

Market Access

        Thailand has obligated to reduce the tariff rates for all 740 items by equal rate reduction each year within ten years. Beginning from 1995, the domestic subsidy for the agricultural sector has been subject to decrease equally each year from Baht 22,126.18 million to no more than Baht 19,028.48 million by the year of 2004. This would attract foreigner investor come to invest in Thailand. In contrast, Thai’s government will lose income from tariff but if we look deep to the economic after we open the market, the price of the product that they import will lead to price competition to the local market. However, the consumer will get benefit of this competition, because consumers have more choices and the price will decrease.

        In my opinion, the WTO step over to assist Thailand to overcome problems of trade against more powerful trading partners is effective and I would like to support Thai’s government to continue WTO policies.