Brussels, 24/07/2006 (Agence Europe) - Meeting in Geneva on 23 July to find a compromise on modalities (figures and other provisions) for the liberalisation of trade in agricultural products and manufactured goods (NAMA), the negotiators of the main WTO trading powers, the G-6 (European Union, United States, Brazil, India, Australia and Japan), threw in the sponge late that night and, considering it pointless to hold their second meeting scheduled for 28 and 29 July, decided to suspend talks indefinitely. The 149 WTO member nations, which were to approve a possible compromise between the members of the G-6 before moving on to another stage in the talks, will now have the task of deciding whether or not it is appropriate to suspend the Doha cycle which was opened in 2001, is already two years behind the original schedule, and which should be concluded by the end of the year.
In a press release expressing the “profound disappointment” of the Member States and of the European Union, Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson laid full blame for the failed talks at the door of the US. “There is no more time left. We missed yesterday the last exit on the motorway of negotiations this summer and it would be unwise to conceal this from ourselves”, he deplored, before saying that it could “so easily have been avoided” as “what stands between us and the modalities of an agreement are not vast numbers or enormous sums”. “Having been mandated by heads of government at the G8 to come together to indicate further flexibility, I felt that each of us did, except the United States”, the European Commissioner said, noting: “The United States was unwilling to accept, or indeed to acknowledge, the flexibility being shown by others in the room and, as a result, felt unable to show any flexibility on the issue of farm subsidies” (domestic support). By acting in this way, Washington considered it “would be better for the process of negotiation to be discontinued at this stage”, Mandelson said, refuting American criticism that the offers being made by its partners when it comes to reducing agricultural customs tariffs were insufficient. “To say that there is no new market access on the table is simply wrong”, Peter Mandelson stressed, recalling that the Union was willing to bring its offer on the average reduction in customs tariffs (39%) closer to that requested by the emergent countries of the G-20 (54%) and to show flexibility on sensitive products (8% of tariff lines in the October 2005 offer, i.e. 160 imported agricultural products for which it calls for increased protection. Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, for her part, deplores the “big failure”. “Whether it is a definite failure, only time will tell”, she said, regretting “a missed opportunity for developing countries”.
Isolated more than ever before, US Trade Representative Susan Schwab denounced, on Monday, the refusal by her five main partners to open up their markets, reproaching them for causing the collapse of five years of discussions. Giving her assurance that the United States was “willing to do more when it comes to domestic support”, Ms Schwab accused the other G-6 members of being above all interested in the loopholes of market opening aimed at protecting sensitive products for the developed countries and the special products of the developing countries. She deplored the fact that “a number of developed countries and emergent countries have sought ways to avoid making an ambitious contribution”, and went on to point out that Washington fixed the number of its sensitive products at only 1% of its tariff lines.