"Talks Flounder, Momentum Lost, Regionalism Growing !"

It is good that the Doha Trade round has agreed to a framework for future negotiations. The World Trade Organisation always does the right thing, the long way and the wrong way. Essentially the 147 members have agreed to a programme, a timeline that should have been concluded at last year’s Ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico. Momentum is important to negotiations otherwise energy goes into contradictory, exclusive bilateral and regional agreements. So, multi-lateralism lives again, it was never dead, despite the obituary suggested by some commentators and pressure groups. Why did it take so long to confirm and structure real negotiations, given that the memberships of the WTO agreed to the agenda in Doha ? Again, agriculture became the focus of foot-dragging. This new agreement again gives the agricultural protectionists and subsidisers a little more wriggle-room. Sensitive products is back on the agenda, it was beaten back at Seattle and Doha Ministerial meetings. A good Japanese or Nordic negotiator can, if bloody-minded, spin this out for a few years. Small changes such as changing tariff lines to product lines will cause headaches in the future. However it was correct to do the deal. The possibility that no agreement could be reached when we know that the European Trade Commissioner, Pancal Camus; Agriculture Commissioner Fischler will not be in place next year could have lost the process another few years. Election cycles could also see the replacement of U.S. Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick. All have invested time and political capital in the round. However it is a worry that they had to seek a further watering down of the Doha understandings. What is also disturbing is that developing countries also sought wider and cheaper exemptions and seek longer timelines.

Yes, I would probably have compromised too. But it is sad that the intellectual and real arguments that you also hear of trade to help yourself seem to have been lost. Trade liberalism between developing countries is necessary if places like Africa are to move ahead. It is no accident that the poorest places are always the most protected economies. Disappointing too, that to get agreement the Europeans and Japanese compromised too and lowered their ambitions in areas such as investment, competition and transparency in Government procurement.

For many countries without domestic competition law, it is too early. But commitments to capacity building domestically, and revisiting these subjects in a few years, or on an ‘opt in and opt out’ clause should have done the trick. At least they have kept trade solicitation on the agenda and all the savings and anti-corruption implications implicit in these negotiations. Government procurement is also an area of good governance, single transparency should not have harmed anyone. It’s out. Still, you can only do what members allow you to do. That’s how it should be. Look forward to the future headlines saying, "Talks Flounder, Momentum Lost, Regionalism Growing !" Negotiators now need to work very hard very privately to advance the round if it is to conclude next year as recently suggested. That’s already a year late. It could be done. Despite Senator Kerry’s rhetoric about the U.S. losing jobs due to China and trade agreements, when it counted he always supported President Clinton’s trade agenda, which was the agenda promoted by previous Presidents. National interest doesn’t change with administrations. He will ask for more ???? in labour and environmental standards.

Then the debate will move to more cohesion between global initiatives such as an International Labour Organisation. What is heart-breaking is that while the negotiations splutter and start, the poorest countries suffer the most. Yet the poorest countries need not wait. They can purchase the tickets to prosperity by liberalising their trade, opening their markets to each other. This, coupled with strong, predictable commercial law, property rights, democracy and an effective ???? public service, makes all the difference.

Speakers in Geneva or at the U.N. repeating the sadly obvious about the evil inheritance of colonialism is not enough. They also have to buy the ticket. All this reminds me of the story of a god botherer who prayed several times a day, urging god to let him win the million dollar lotto prize. This went on for years, finally even god got impatient, and with a flash of lightening and a clap of thunder, came down to earth and fronting the persistent believer said, "Give me a break, help me out here - buy a ticket !"