How can we conclude the Doha Round?
Sunday, 13 September 2009
Pradeep S Mehta
EVERYONE wants a swift conclusion of the Doha Round, but one needs more than platitudes and clear intents to do so. Every other recent global meeting has asked for one, but it is one thing to say so and another to do so. The call has been associated with another call to stop protectionism, but that has been practised more in the breech.
India took a bold step to organise a mini-ministerial meeting early this month in Delhi to find ways to put traction in the talks which have been somewhere in the intensive care unit and on the road to a funeral. Be that as it may, the Delhi meeting did add an impetus to the frozen talks by agreeing to a meeting of senior officials (or sherpas of Ministers) at Geneva on September 14. The last senior officials meeting had taken place in December, 2008.
In any event, India by organising this meeting has called the bluff of countries for having torpedoed the July meeting in Geneva, by not agreeing to lower its demand on safeguarding its subsistence farmers. It was not India alone which was steadfast on this issue but China and many other countries also supported this. Therefore, too, it was wrong to blame her. Alas, India's public diplomacy has been poor, that there were other factors that resulted in failure of the Geneva talks.
One wishes these talks were held in Washington DC where the fate of the Doha Round lies. However, for whatever it is worth, one hopes that the Pittsburg meeting of the Group of Twenty (G-20) later during the month will deal with the matter with more than rhetoric. Not only Doha Round, but all matters relating to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rest on the Capitol Hill in DC. Unless the US president has a fast track authority, no commitments can be made by other parties. Alas, the US administration is more occupied with many domestic issues such as health care reforms, financial crises and so on.
One does not know what will Obama be able to get on health care reforms, but he has been supported by the US Congress on offering fiscal stimulus to the troubled financial and industrial sector. The key problem with Doha is the long term fiscal stimulus being offered to the farm sector in the US (and the European Union or EU) which has robbed the developing world of progress. This is the core issue of the Doha Round and, therefore, it was christened the Development Round. Alas, this has been something which many have questioned whether it was just lip service for the countries to accept the Doha Round. It was then necessary as the twin towers of the symbol of free trade, the World Trade Centre (WTC) were attacked by terrorists in a most bizarre way on 9/11 in New York. It shook the whole world and thus there was some stimulus to adopt the Doha Round as an expression of self-confidence. And in order to get the poor world on the train, development was offered as the fig leaf.
If one looks at the history of world trade, development has always been somewhere between the back burner and back of the stove. For example, the Havana Charter agreed to in 1948 by the founder members of the GATT, including the USA, had proposed an International Trade Organisation and, inter alia, a key development issue of controlling restrictive business practices by big business. Alas, the US Congress torpedoed it, and it never came through.
The thinking in the US has always been to focus on market access and development of its own businesses. Thus, in spite of huge opposition by the poor countries, it was successful in getting an agreement on intellectual property (TRIPs) into the text of the WTO agreements in 1994-95. This is in spite of the fact that the TRIPs was against the whole spirit of trade liberalisation and also harmed the development prospects of the poor.
If we examine the Doha Round problematique in the historical context, one can see that filibustering tactics are used to push the developing world into a corner to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. This has been witnessed in every cycle of the Doha Round negotiations. The run up to Cancun ministerial was dominated by Singapore issues, which became the cause of the collapse. Thereafter Paris in 2005, Geneva in 2006, Potsdam in 2007 and Geneva in 2008 broke down due to due to the inter-sticing of modalities between the farm agreement and industrial good negotiations, OTDS of the rich and then special safeguards in farm goods, respectively.
Following the Delhi summit, the US Trade Representative (USTR), Ron Kirk has said that the Congress can take a call on the deal provided their business interests are advanced and the Doha round has provisions on labour and environmental standards. The last two issues are like lightning rods for the poor, as such provisions can lead to further protectionism. Once again, the poor will be on the defensive. The rich never realise that a win-lose outcome cannot lead to any conclusion, and the Doha Round will continue to stay in the intensive care unit.
The writer is the Secretary General of CUTS International, an international
economic policy research and advocacy group. He can be reached at psm@cuts.org
EVERYONE wants a swift conclusion of the Doha Round, but one needs more than platitudes and clear intents to do so. Every other recent global meeting has asked for one, but it is one thing to say so and another to do so. The call has been associated with another call to stop protectionism, but that has been practised more in the breech.
India took a bold step to organise a mini-ministerial meeting early this month in Delhi to find ways to put traction in the talks which have been somewhere in the intensive care unit and on the road to a funeral. Be that as it may, the Delhi meeting did add an impetus to the frozen talks by agreeing to a meeting of senior officials (or sherpas of Ministers) at Geneva on September 14. The last senior officials meeting had taken place in December, 2008.
In any event, India by organising this meeting has called the bluff of countries for having torpedoed the July meeting in Geneva, by not agreeing to lower its demand on safeguarding its subsistence farmers. It was not India alone which was steadfast on this issue but China and many other countries also supported this. Therefore, too, it was wrong to blame her. Alas, India's public diplomacy has been poor, that there were other factors that resulted in failure of the Geneva talks.
One wishes these talks were held in Washington DC where the fate of the Doha Round lies. However, for whatever it is worth, one hopes that the Pittsburg meeting of the Group of Twenty (G-20) later during the month will deal with the matter with more than rhetoric. Not only Doha Round, but all matters relating to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rest on the Capitol Hill in DC. Unless the US president has a fast track authority, no commitments can be made by other parties. Alas, the US administration is more occupied with many domestic issues such as health care reforms, financial crises and so on.
One does not know what will Obama be able to get on health care reforms, but he has been supported by the US Congress on offering fiscal stimulus to the troubled financial and industrial sector. The key problem with Doha is the long term fiscal stimulus being offered to the farm sector in the US (and the European Union or EU) which has robbed the developing world of progress. This is the core issue of the Doha Round and, therefore, it was christened the Development Round. Alas, this has been something which many have questioned whether it was just lip service for the countries to accept the Doha Round. It was then necessary as the twin towers of the symbol of free trade, the World Trade Centre (WTC) were attacked by terrorists in a most bizarre way on 9/11 in New York. It shook the whole world and thus there was some stimulus to adopt the Doha Round as an expression of self-confidence. And in order to get the poor world on the train, development was offered as the fig leaf.
If one looks at the history of world trade, development has always been somewhere between the back burner and back of the stove. For example, the Havana Charter agreed to in 1948 by the founder members of the GATT, including the USA, had proposed an International Trade Organisation and, inter alia, a key development issue of controlling restrictive business practices by big business. Alas, the US Congress torpedoed it, and it never came through.
The thinking in the US has always been to focus on market access and development of its own businesses. Thus, in spite of huge opposition by the poor countries, it was successful in getting an agreement on intellectual property (TRIPs) into the text of the WTO agreements in 1994-95. This is in spite of the fact that the TRIPs was against the whole spirit of trade liberalisation and also harmed the development prospects of the poor.
If we examine the Doha Round problematique in the historical context, one can see that filibustering tactics are used to push the developing world into a corner to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. This has been witnessed in every cycle of the Doha Round negotiations. The run up to Cancun ministerial was dominated by Singapore issues, which became the cause of the collapse. Thereafter Paris in 2005, Geneva in 2006, Potsdam in 2007 and Geneva in 2008 broke down due to due to the inter-sticing of modalities between the farm agreement and industrial good negotiations, OTDS of the rich and then special safeguards in farm goods, respectively.
Following the Delhi summit, the US Trade Representative (USTR), Ron Kirk has said that the Congress can take a call on the deal provided their business interests are advanced and the Doha round has provisions on labour and environmental standards. The last two issues are like lightning rods for the poor, as such provisions can lead to further protectionism. Once again, the poor will be on the defensive. The rich never realise that a win-lose outcome cannot lead to any conclusion, and the Doha Round will continue to stay in the intensive care unit.
The writer is the Secretary General of CUTS International, an international
economic policy research and advocacy group. He can be reached at psm@cuts.org