Relaunch is possible, if … Pascal Lamy was smart in avoiding over-dramatising disagreement over the Doha Round at the end of July. Despite the chorus of lamentations announcing failure, he said he intended to relaunch negotiations as quickly as possible. He was right, because success could still be achieved if ambitions become more realistic, with priority given to aims that are in the general interest over those in the national interest, which are, of course, honourable but which sometimes hinder or prevent compromise. It is certainly difficult to say exactly where general interest lies and no one can claim to know exactly what it is, but it would be reasonable to accept that it does not necessarily correspond to the interests of major retailers. The unfettered expansion of world trade is not the only valid criterion.
For centuries, increased trade has been presented as a key element for human progress, spreading knowledge and goods. Today, we have to take account more of the two universally acknowledged priorities: tackling global warming, and feeding the human race which is growing exponentially. From these points of view, errors have been made, wrong directions taken even by bodies which should have been (or which claimed to have been) working for a more equitable sharing of wellbeing and wealth in the world.
One example is well known. The policy encouraging poor countries, especially in Africa, to develop a monoculture for the export market resulted in the destruction of subsistence farming in whole regions. Thus, many people were deprived of the opportunity to pursue a reasonable degree of food independence; they became dependent on imports to feed themselves and their land-use balance was destroyed (those monstrous cities with millions upon millions of inhabitants living in poverty!) - all for the profits of major retailers, a few multinational companies and corrupt local politicians. World Bank funding was reserved for projects in line with this policy, with the encouragement of OXFAM, which railed against anyone who dared raise any doubts.
Unsafe directions. The error, above, is now acknowledged, but unsound or short-sighted directions are still being taken. In my opinion, Pascal Lamy himself was thinking more of the rhetorical effect when he spoke of the billions of dollars wasted because customs duties and other border measures were being retained. Such a calculation fails to take account of the consequences of removing all measures of protection. In parts of Africa, it would, quite simply, mean the end of some states since customs duties make up the largest part of public resources. Further and above all, it would mean the automatic disappearance of “trade preferences”, and thus of most of the exports of poor countries, and this to the advantage of China, Brazil and a few other giants. In Europe, Japan and other countries, it would mean the end of most agriculture, it would be a disaster for balanced land use, for our ways of life and traditions.
The current deadlock is caused by everyone calling for the removal of measures applied by others while keeping their own in place, sometimes in defiance of all logic. For example: China and India are currently developing the world's cheapest cars, yet they are still calling for reductions in the customs duties applied by the United States, Europe and Japan, while keeping in place the protection they themselves apply in that sector!
The real priorities. World trade has more need of common rules, of a certain discipline, than of radical generalised liberalisation measures. The priorities are known: combating counterfeiting (which sometimes, as, for example, with counterfeit medicines, has consequences far beyond trade); compliance with food safety standards; expanding agricultural output in ways that do not harm Nature; retaining preferences for poor countries. Of course, we should not forget the removal of a number of obstacles and the fluidity of trade, and, in some areas, access to the various markets must still be improved.
There is, then, enough to allow the final phase of the Doha Round to be useful and effective, by giving up demands that emerging countries should abandon protection of their nascent industries, that African and other poor countries should give up their preferences, and that Europe and the United States should allow the disappearance of their agriculture on which the whole world depends.
(F.R./transl.rt)