Nine days of intense talks in Geneva weren’t enough to forge a breakthrough in what remains an elusive deal in the World Trade Organization’s Doha round to open up global trade. The latest talks collapsed on Tuesday after the United States and India failed to find a compromise on measures intended to help poor countries protect their farmers against import surges, a diplomat said.One analyst said the failure could hurt U.S. exports, and therefore the economy and the dollar. Amid the current energy, food and financial crises, some analysts also said the failure of the talks would be a blow to the global economy.
Ministers could come back after the summer break for one last roll of the dice but some analysts said any deal would now likely be years away. Despite the latest failure, the United States said it remained committed to the Doha talks. “This is not a time to talk about a round collapsing,” U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab told reporters. “The U.S. commitments remain on the table, awaiting reciprocal responses.”
The question is, is it worth it? Do you think a global trade deal would have a significant impact on the economy? Would you be better off or worse? Send us your comments.
Trackback
6 comments so far
Yes, the collapse does matter. Developed countries will be going bilateral while developing countries will have to swallow unilateralist FTA deals. At the moment the US is depicted as the scapegoat and India as the savior of the developing world. However, in the long run India did equal harm to the developing countries, in particular, by depriving them from the only multilateral negotiation forum they ever had.Power-hungry India attempted to take over the Brazilian role of the leader of the developing world. Maybe out of envy or Kamal’s personal ambitions? India certainly did not a favor to the developing world.
- Posted by PhilippinaAmerica is a poor country. Isn’t it? We have 9 trillion in debt? That’s not going to pay itself off.
- Posted by Tom BrownIf the round has failed, it is because it was not going to provide as great a value for either sides to really move from their positions. From such a perspective, if the stakes were not high enough, its best that it failed. If the stakes are increased, they will get resurrected. Its happened earlier, its happened again. What value was the round to deliver -$100 bn? 0.2% of global trade? is that worth all this effort? The negotiators have probably spent half of it in costs and their time value negotiating this over the last 7 years.
I find media on both the sides too biased or unwilling to look at the other’s perspective. However if the G33, the G90 wanted better SSM, then I for one cannot believe it was India’s fault only. The US is very good at spin. Unfortunately now its comments are seen thro a filter. Did someone say cotton?
- Posted by CatoThe developed world is falling big time. The “developing Countries” may just have realized the best chance to grow without the developed super powers. No more dumping of cheap subsided to countries that can develop their own industries. Let the competition for raw material arouind the world begin with the developed world no longer calling the shots….”OIL OIL OIL” Let the developing world have a chance to make own friends using bilateral deals rather than dictatorship from developed world….let WTO not be misused by USA to Hood wink Russia into “international acceptance….the world is becoming free at last without the “dumy organisations”
- Posted by Kenneth sojaDoha Talks could not be ended in auspicious manner as there in the meeting, any kinds of assurance for helping the farmers of the poor countries, could not be taken in straightway.At present, many countries like the US, India and the others have been shoildering overburden from the economic retardation.Most of the participant countries are under the grip of higher inflation and which could not encourage them to undertake any supportative inference in terms of fiscal outlay further in such crucial condition.They might have thought even also that any assitance to the farmers of the poor countries could hamper their exports to those poor countries making them persistent to their surged imports.It is the question of relative economic gain respect to the present evaluation.On the other hand, if those poor coutris fail to achieve agricultural growth then how would those poor countries be able to entertain further imports staying in more poor economic condition?
- Posted by PRANAB HAZRAPerhaps it is important to consider the larger context and implications for international policy and diplomacy generally. We have a UN that appears ineffectual, a World Bank with questionable performance, rising international security concerns and so on. And now pending failure of the international trading system - probably the most successful international policy endeavour in modern history. What we seem to be witnessing is a wholesale meltdown in international leadership simply for the sake of petty politcal rivalries and narrow poltical interests. A shame when leadership is the highest order of the day.
- Posted by Darcy