The collapse of the World Trade Organisation talks was due to the inflexibleand unreasonable demands of the EU-US bloc, writes Oisín Coghlan
Something new happened in Cancun on Sunday with the breakdown of the world trade talks. Developing countries showed that they would no longer to be bullied into agreements which they judge would damage their chances of development.
Rich countries were looking for something for nothing. They hoped they could open negotiations on the highly contentious "Singapore issues", such as investment and competition, without offering any meaningful concessions on the key issues for development. In the past, through a mixture of canny tactics and brazen arm-twisting, they probably would have got their way.
Not this time. Even before the dramatic collapse on Sunday afternoon, it was evident that a different dynamic was emerging.
Two new alliances of developing countries formed to stake their claim to a fair share of the benefits of any deal. One was too powerful to ignore, the other too deserving to be dismissed. The Group of 21, led by India, Brazil and China, represented over two thirds of the world's farmers, and presented a robust alternative to the essentially defensive proposals of the US and the EU in the agriculture talks.
The other alliance of African, Caribbean, Pacific and other least developed countries ably represented the needs of the people whose concerns are supposed to be at the heart of the Doha "Development Round". They were vehemently opposed to overloading the already crowded and complex agenda with Europe's wish list of new issues. They were also determined that the products vital to the livelihoods of their massive rural populations would receive adequate protection against unfair competition from heavily subsidised imports. The case which received most attention during the talks was the plight of the 10 million cotton farmers of west and central Africa whose markets are being destroyed by the dumping of highly subsidised US cotton on world markets.
Given this shift in the balance of power since Doha two years ago, the first thing which tipped the conference towards failure was the sheer bias of the draft agreement published on Saturday by the chair of the conference, the Mexican Foreign Minister, Mr Luis Ernesto Derbez. Supposedly produced on the basis of three days of intensive consultations, the text prompted some to wonder if the drafters had been attending a different conference. Developing countries wanted none of the four new issues. The text proposed three and a quarter. Developing countries wanted meaningful detail on the reform of agricultural subsidies and adequate protection of crops vital to life and livelihood. Instead, they were offered a tweaking of the EU-US proposal.
The uproar which ensued must have made the process more difficult when the negotiators got down to serious business at 1 a.m. on Sunday. Oddly, the conference chairman chose to concentrate first on the new issues, where the political polarisation had become intense, rather than agriculture, where the differences were substantial but where there was more concrete detail to play with. Even a Brazilian spokesperson I talked to on Sunday morning could see the outline of a deal on agriculture. It is usually sensible to focus first on areas where agreement looks more probable, particularly as some developing countries had made it clear they would soften their opposition on new issues if there was substantial progress on agriculture.
Instead, the chair channelled the talks into a showdown over the Singapore issues and here is where I think the European Union miscalculated. Despite the fact that many member states were willing to settle for two of the four new issues, they allowed the Commission to continue to push for all four until well past the eleventh hour.
Perhaps the latter underestimated the strength of the opposition among developing countries, or more likely their new-found unity. By the time it offered a partial compromise, one which Christian Aid and other NGOs feel would still have undermined development efforts, it was too late. The African countries had had enough of discussing issues they felt should not even be on the table and stood firm against conceding something for nothing.
In Doha they were promised agricultural reform. In Cancun they weren't prepared to accept two new issues for a more earnest repetition of the same promise, with few details and no deadlines. The Kenyan negotiator was first with the news that the game was up.
In his final press conference, Pascal Lamy, the irrepressible EU Trade Commissioner, described the World Trade Organisation as medieval. I would go further. To a great extent the WTO has been used to hold developing countries in thrall to the interests of the major trading blocs and the transnational corporations headquartered there. I agree with him in one crucial respect, however. For an organisation set up to make the rules for international trade, the WTO has precious few rules of its own.
Far too much lies in the gift of the conference chairman, such as the disastrous draft declaration, rather than in the hands of the organisation's own members. We can only hope that ministers will return to the capitals of North America and Europe and reflect on the real meaning of a "development round".
For Christian Aid, it means each delegation putting poverty reduction rather than naked-self interest at the top of their negotiating agenda. This is a shift in mindset that hardened diplomats from the West have obviously yet to make.
There is much to reflect on in Ireland too. The Government maintained an open and facilitative attitude to civil society organisations but there was little sign that our negotiating stance was tempered by the development priorities of Ireland's African aid-partners. The media focused primarily on the interests of farmers who resented the agenda raised by organisations such as my own, while few questioned the Government's stated objectives in areas of interest to the US multinationals in Ireland. This was a far more obvious source of tension in the Irish position. Certainly Minister for Development Mr Tom Kitt will have much to discuss with his counterparts when he flies to Kenya this week.
Oisín Coghlan is Christian Aid Ireland's policy officer. He attended the talks in Cancun as a representative of Dóchas, the association of development organisations, on the official Irish delegation.