It is official: World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha talks will now be taken out of deep freeze.  Not unexpected, the announcement was made in Davos, Switzerland on January 27.  The Alpine resort was the venue for the just-concluded informal, high-profile weekend gathering of some 30 trade ministers on the fringes of the World Economic Forum, an annual meeting of political and business leaders as well as civil society representatives. 

A Dominican national, Mr Bardouille is a former Caribbean trade official. He is currently a PhD candidate at York University, in Toronto, Canada.

The select group of ministers had converged on Davos in a bid to jump-start the long-troubled Doha round negotiations which were shelved six months ago.  Some ministers held bilateral talks ahead of Saturday’s meeting.

In addition to WTO Director General Pascal Lamy, top trade negotiators from the US and the European Union (EU) declared late Saturday that conditions were conducive for Doha talks involving the WTO’s 150 members to be re-started.  Indeed, it was the failure of the US and the EU, in addition to a small group of the world’s key agricultural trading nations, to strike a deal and thereby break the deadlock in trade talks last summer that led to the eventual suspension of the round. 

Following on the heels of intensified Geneva-based diplomatic activity to rejuvenate moribund global trade talks in the closing weeks of 2006, a high-level meeting in Washington, DC between US President George Bush and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso (who also met separately with US lawmakers) in early January set the stage for Doha’s resurrection.  The two sides used the occasion to renew pledges to complete an ambitious, balanced Doha round, a theme that was echoed in Davos over the weekend. 

At the close of the informal Davos trade ministers meeting, trade chiefs were quick to cite renewed, collective commitment to the resumption of the round.  But little else was unveiled; and in this respect just a political, symbolic signal was offered up as regards a re-start to Doha, rather than a breakthrough on issues at the heart of the discord.  And so, on balance, the impact of the Davos encounter on the ‘nuts and bolts’ aspects of negotiations is indeterminate.

It is instructive that in the lead up to the meeting, expectations regarding ‘concrete’ agreements sprouting from the encounter were downplayed.  Moreover, while top developed country negotiators at Davos publicly declared their willingness to advance the thorny issue of farm trade liberalization; their remarks were laced with familiar caveats.

The success of the Davos gathering was gauged on the basis of palpable readiness to re-start Doha.  Judging by the response of trade chiefs, the informal meeting met its goal.  It has breathed new life into floundering talks.  But the challenge is in the details, and it will be up to trade negotiators now to navigate the mercurial Doha talks.

Far from the outcome of the Davos encounter truncating the road to a re-start of Doha talks, trade diplomats have already signaled that further bilateral meetings would have to take place before Geneva-based talks could resume in earnest.

Prospects for Doha have improved, but G6 fault lines loom large

Global trade talks continue to be held hostage by the G6 stand-off - which runs deep, given the intractable issues on the negotiating table.  Launched in Doha, Qatar (the round’s namesake) in 2001 and plagued by serial failures to meet interim deadlines, the ability of the round to move forward still hinges on breakthroughs on the ‘triangle of issues’ (domestic support, market access for agriculture and non-agricultural market access).  In large measure, breakthroughs need to take place between the US and the 27-nation EU bloc, together a subset of the so-called G6 (including Australia, Brazil, India, and Japan) - amongst which cleavages are also deeply embedded.  Apart from pressure on the United States to offer more concessions in farm subsidies and the EU to compromise in the area of farm tariffs, Brazil and India face pressure to open up their industrial goods and services sectors.

At this juncture, there is little indication that the fundamental fault-lines at the centre of the ‘triangle of issues’ impasse amongst the G6 are any closer to resolution.

Breakthrough in short-term elusive, but on ‘right path’

It is not yet clear how the standard rhetoric of commitment to seeing Doha through is to translate into meaningful, immediate headway.

Indications are that a breakthrough is a long way off.  US Trade Representative Susan Schwab admitted as much following talks she had in Geneva earlier in January with WTO chief Pascal Lamy.  She did qualify her statement, suggesting that talks are “on a path that could enable us to reach a successful conclusion to the Doha Round.”  The US trade chief remained cautiously optimistic at Davos too, guarded in how she characterized what could be achieved in the short-term: a decidedly cagey position relative to the stance of her European Commission counterpart, Peter Mandelson.

For his part, Lamy has repeatedly called for flexibility amongst members, following a familiar script ever since talks unravelled.  The possibility of ministerial-level talks early in 2007 is also being mooted.

Bringing ‘the others’ in

The insularity of the interchange on core modalities issues at the heart of agricultural and industrial tariff talks has been a sore point for WTO members at large, especially for those developing countries barred from the exclusive ‘G6 club’. 

In particular, developing countries are disgruntled not only because they are relegated to the periphery of Doha talks, but that their issues are too.  About two-thirds of the WTO’s memberships are developing countries; yet pro-development trade reform is in short supply.  This is tragically ironic, considering that the ‘Doha Development Agenda’ was launched with a view to taking into account the interests of the world’s poorest nations. 

The core ‘development dimension’ of the round has fallen through the cracks, despite repeated calls by the small, vulnerable and poorest WTO members for this dimension to be front-loaded.

Curbing enthusiasm, managing expectations

While trade diplomacy may have shifted to a higher gear, a couple of key events on the political calendar give pause for reflection.  Each event is ostensibly beholden to domestic politics, thereby impacting on the flexibility of the EU and US, respectively.

First, France, the European country most reticent about opening up farm trade faces a Presidential election in April of this year.  Renowned for coddling its farmers, France – particularly its incumbent government - is not likely to support deep concessions in an EU position on farm trade.  By extension, France will likely seek to reign in the EU’s trade chief - Peter Mandelson - at the WTO negotiating table, as it has in the past.  This significantly diminishes the chances for a viable EU/US compromise on the so-called ‘bumper sticker numbers’ in the agricultural negotiating area: by extension negatively impacting breakthrough amongst the group at the locus of Doha talks, the G6. 

Second, the change of guard to a new Democrat-led Congress (headed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, respectively) during last November’s US mid-term election may constrain the US trade agenda, of which Doha talks are a constituent part.  According to some observers, the new Congress is not expected to renew the Bush Administration’s request for extension of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which expires in early summer 2007. (Without TPA, the Administration is unable to submit trade deals to Congress for a yes-or-no vote without the possibility of major amendments.)

Whether or not some form of a breakthrough in the Doha talks prior to the expiry of TPA positively affects its chances of being extended is an open question.  However, indications are that the TPA deadline is compelling WTO members to narrow areas of divergence, and to do so with urgency.  (The original January 2005 deadline for Doha round negotiations was missed.)

Regardless, the political landscape that is materializing may not be propitious for the unencumbered unfolding of Doha talks. 

In all likelihood, and if past experience is any guide, the path before WTO members is likely to be a bumpy one. 
Looming large too is the timeframe for breakthrough.  Currently, there is a narrow window of opportunity through which Doha can be carried forward: a window, many contend, that will close in early spring.  Dire warnings have been issued that if some sort of agreement is not clinched within this time frame; the round’s completion risks being delayed for several years.

The need for strong, new political commitment

As a result of the outcome of the Davos meeting, have global trade talks turned a corner?  Yes.  But there is the possibility that talks may run aground again.

It is too soon to say whether there is convergence over the key ‘numbers’ around which negotiators are focusing.  Certainly, the mood amongst negotiators has changed from disconsolation to hope: Davos is a testament.  But that is not enough.

Invariably, whether the process that is set to unfold in the weeks and months to come yields any fruit will depend on an intensified mobilization of political will, buoyed by concerted compromise in order to salvage Doha.  At a mid-January summit held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, African Union trade ministers called on the major players to exercise flexibility and to deploy the necessary political will, so that Doha talks can be brought out of impasse.

Price of failure

Doha’s resumption cannot be imbued with a ‘business as usual attitude’, especially when it comes to the involvement of developing countries in the process.  As exemplified by the WTO’s Cancún Ministerial in 2003, developing countries have emerged as a formidable group, one that will not simply acquiesce to any agreement forged by the WTO’s major players.  After the experience of questionable gains from the Uruguay Round, developing countries have indicated that they are not prepared to gamble with their commercial and developmental interests.

Effectively integrating developing country interests in the negotiations is a requirement if the ‘Doha Development Agenda’ is to live up to its name.  Anything short of this will render the round a failure, as developing countries and their interests would not have been afforded the opportunity to take centre-stage in a final negotiated package.  As such, the much-touted pledge that the round would lift millions in developing countries out of poverty whilst enabling long-term economic benefits to set in would prove illusory, vindicating Doha detractors.