With the policy arena still changed radically by the global economic crisis, the upcoming WTO ministerial meeting is a chance to find new balance in the institution, writes Magda Shahin* There is little that the coming World Trade Organisation (WTO) ministerial conference can accomplish to rescue the drowning Doha Development Agenda (DDA), the Doha Round having been with us for the last eight years. With very little optimism, it is unfortunate to say that the WTO ministerial meeting does not come at the best time, when governments are up to their necks trying to prepare for the climate change summit in Copenhagen in December. It is also not the best timing considering that the fallout from the economic crisis still looms overhead, along with bitterness regarding the liberalisation of trade. Yes, it is true that this coming ministerial is nothing more than a routinely organised meeting where ministers come and go without having made any real progress. WTO Director Pascal Lamy describes it as "a platform for ministers to review the functioning of the house." For me, without a negotiating agenda, this meeting is like throwing a dinner party without serving food. It would be easy to go on criticising the coming ministerial meeting, but to give the WTO a fair shake we should be realistic and assess the coming gathering in the context of the global economic climate. Will the Copenhagen climate change summit be successful? How attractive will the exchange of concessions be for the various players involved? Has Barack Obama's visit to China yielded positive results and how much will these outcomes manifest in Copenhagen? And what about the economic crisis? It is true that its impacts have been tempered with huge stimulus packages, but will the crisis still have long-term impacts that challenge the guiding principles -- ie the Washington consensus, the liberalisation of trade, the shift from public to private sector dominance -- of the current global economy? These are but a few issues that need to be thoroughly investigated in the coming period and in doing so it is essential to assess the functioning of the WTO, as it is a keystone institution in the current global economic order. In assessing the prospects for the ministerial it is equally important to determine who the real players are in the WTO behind the scenes, and who has a vested interest to conclude the DDA successfully. It seems to me, and it is sad if it is true, that it is only Brazil and the agricultural countries that are adamant about maintaining the DDA as their sole course of action. To say this, I know from experience, is premature. But it is the agricultural countries that have a clear interest in the DDA and that stand to gain from any concessions in agriculture from the EU and the US. It is not premature to say, however, that the Uruguay Round was kept alive only by the US that acted as the driving force behind the inclusion of new trade issues in the multilateral system. Can Brazil together with India, China, South Africa and other emerging markets wield the same power and drive forward the Doha consensus? What are the trade-offs that will bring the US onboard? It is very disappointing that in describing progress to date, Lamy holds up the "better understanding of positions" as evidence. After eight years of long and tedious negotiations we have not actually moved towards one another, we have simply identified where each party stands. If this is the case, how can we envisage a successful ending of the DDA by the end of 2010? For that we need a miracle and it is not clear whether the trade agenda is part of heaven's priorities. I feel that Lamy needs to be more candid and courageous to call a spade a spade. He is the one best placed to address the core of the present status quo and to find a way forward, and that's exactly what must be done. If he believes that the Doha Round has been too ambitious, let's hear it so we can curb our expectations; if he believes that pursuing the same route in the WTO is futile then let's hear it so we can go for what the WTO does best in this foggy timing -- settling disputes between trading countries. Things are not in the best shape. The crisis has brought back export subsidies and state aid, notably in developed countries. The EU, Switzerland and the US did not shy away from reinstating export subsidies on dairy products and removing limits to state purchases of agricultural products; not withstanding new and imaginative non- tariff barriers to various imports. As for the services sector, not much has moved there, as this sector is held hostage to progress in agriculture. US defiance of all WTO rules continues with its cotton subsidies, which are very much to the detriment of African countries and Egypt. As a small trading partner, Egypt has remained in the backseat on many controversial issues in the Doha Round, most of all in agriculture. Egypt has no interest in bringing down subsidies as they keep international prices low for Egypt's food imports, nor has it direct interest in fighting aggressively for more market access along the lines of Brazil as such a move could threaten the preferences Egypt has been ardently negotiating with the EU. I firmly believe that things are not going to loosen up in the WTO as long as the economic crisis remains and until alternative strategies have been put in place. The WTO began big for the mere reason that in the mid-1990s a whole new trading agenda with services, TRIPs (trade-related intellectual property), investment and even environment was pushed into the system. The timing was right for an ambitious work programme with a comprehensive trade round only five years after the completion of the Uruguay Round. Today things are different. We encounter continued disinterest on the part of the major trading power, the US, reluctance on the part of the EU, and fear of the unknown from the majority of developing countries, despite the leadership of Brazil and others. Unlike the IMF and the World Bank, the WTO does not need restructuring but it certainly needs to adapt itself to the new conditions presented by economic and environmental crises. Governments are back in the equation and form part of the solution. Social and environmental questions are gaining in prominence. Free trade is no longer the cure of all ills. From the perspective of one who participated actively in the Uruguay Round and in the preparations for Doha, I can say that the WTO will have to find a new balance. There is no alternative. Perhaps this should be the focus of the next ministerial conference. * The writer is director of the Trade-Related Assistance Centre (TRAC) of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt.
