Final stretch at WTO

WITH JUST A month to go before the Doha ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation, negotiations on the agenda for a fresh round of trade liberalisation negotiations have reached a critical stage. After the terrorist attacks in the U.S. there is, of course, some uncertainty now about the Doha meet taking place; though for the record the WTO and the Government of Qatar insist that there is no change in the schedule. But whether or not the Doha meeting takes place next month is immaterial to the tussle at the WTO which has been taking place since at least 1998, when the first serious calls for a new round of talks were made. Cancellation of the conference will only postpone a final resolution to a later date, though trade and commerce Ministers from some of the more important members of the WTO - including India - are to meet informally in Singapore in the middle of this month to draw up the contours of a possible agreement.

The final phase of negotiations has been entered with the preparation of two draft agreements to be adopted at Doha; neither of which is to the liking of India and a number of other developing countries for whom history looks to be repeating itself at the WTO. The final commitments that the leading trading nations - the U.S., the E.U., Canada and Japan - have been able to come up with on the ``implementation issues'' fall far short of expectations and show scant respect for the energy and good faith that have gone into more than two years of negotiations. The many imbalances and defects in the 1994 Uruguay Round agreements that were identified are to be either ignored or in the few instances where definite commitments have been made, they are more in the nature of recommendations and not mandatory in nature. It is possible that this is a negotiating tactic with the more important issues being held back until India and the others opposed to a new round agree to a comprehensive negotiating agenda. But the draft ministerial programme on what has been tactfully called a new ``work programme'' is also disappointing since it reflects more the developed country interests than that of the admittedly myriad groups in the developing world. The contentious subjects of a global treaty on foreign investment and competition policy are still on the table while the developing country agenda for trade in agriculture has been given short shrift.

All this does not mean that an agreement to launch a new round is ``a done deal''. There are other fault lines largely within the developed world that have not yet been cemented. First, the agenda on agriculture - the cornerstone of a new round - is yet to be agreed to though intelligent formulations have been made in recent days to satisfy both the proponents and opponents of liberalisation. Second, the E.U., citing consumer concerns, remains adamant on negotiating new rules on food safety while the rest of the world sees this as a ruse for controlling agricultural imports. Third, the U.S., under pressure from Congress, is vehemently opposed to re-negotiating the existing agreement on anti-dumping duties; though here Japan, the E.U. and many other countries would like more transparency in what is potentially another device for protectionism. However, all these firm positions could be more in the nature of posturing. Given the right negotiating language none of these chasms are unbridgeable. An additional source of momentum towards striking a deal has come from the U.S. taking the moral high ground after the terrorist attacks and claiming that open trade is closely connected to the fight against terrorism. Far-fetched as this argument may be, a galaxy of political personalities in the U.S. and the E.U. have been using the horror about the events of September 11 to push ahead at the WTO.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Do not escalate the 'smart' war
Next     : Fourth generation warfare