The failure of the World
Trade Organisation at Cancun is the greatest failure in international trade since the US plunged the world economy into recession by hiking tariffs in the
late 1920s and early '30s. It is a stunning example of governments blowing up the institution that helps them most. The event changes the political landscape
for trade liberalisation. It will encourage more bilateral and regional agreements.
Inside the WTO it creates a new divide: between those who think the institution is important and those who don't. This may change Australia's idea about who are
its friends and who are not.
There is no way the Doha Round can now finish on time by the end of 2004. That was anyway unlikely. In addition, the credibility of the WTO is now on the block.
What went wrong?
Unbridgeable differences over agriculture? No effort was made to finish those negotiations at Cancun. A new version of the mandate for the negotiations had
been developed. Most believed it would get them back on track. It had clear benefits
for developing countries.
The sticking point was over two minor issues that no one could have dreamed would bring a WTO ministerial to its knees: making government procurement more
transparent and "facilitating" trade (that is, easier Customs clearances).
The European Union asked that it be kept in the negotiations and it would take investment and competition policy off the table to keep things moving. This was
a good deal. Too good, in fact. Investment shouldn't have been surrendered.
Nevertheless, the developing countries drew a line in the sand. They would not agree. There were no billions in subsidies here, no outrageous tariffs, just
a couple of good ideas. What they were gambling with was the welfare of their own people. They had a smoking gun. It was pointed at the heads of their own people.
"Take another step," they told the EU, "and we'll pull the trigger." They did.
Mexico's minister Luis Debrez understood this. "If we can't agree on those [soft] issues, there is no point talking about agriculture," he said. He
wound up the conference. Officials in Geneva are now to sort these issues out.
So, what were the developing countries playing at? Brazil was the first culprit. It was adamant that the US and the EU should liberalise, not it (Brazil is the
world's most competitive producer of oilseeds, chicken meat, citrus and sugar, and has high tariffs), and that no developing country should have to liberalise. The EU and the US made it clear that Brazil had to pull its weight.
Brazil organised a bloc of developing countries to oppose cuts in trade barriers for these countries.
The second factor was the Africans. There is now a large group of them in the WTO. They behave as if they are in the UN. They forget, or don't care, that what
they do in the WTO affects their own people. It is almost as if the failed-state syndrome that is becoming such a headache in Africa has wafted into the WTO.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.