Business Today Web Exclusive

Cancun Round-Up

India has attained clarity in its role at the WTO - as a leader of the so-called G-21 countries.

Arun Jaitley: Where do we stand?

Now that the WTO Ministerial meet of the Doha Round at Cancun, Mexico, is over, it's time to ask: what did it achieve?

Precious little is the answer. In brief, the world's rich countries - the US and EU - didn't budge on the issue of their trade-distorting farm subsidies, much to the dismay of the world's poor countries, which need their farmers to gain access to a fair global market for agricultural output. And the poor countries worked overtime to block off the rich countries' moves towards any discussion on the so-called 'Singapore issues' (talks on cross-border investment, competition policies, trade facilitation and transparency in government procurement).

It all ended in acrimony, with the poor accusing the rich of trying to use the WTO as another instrument of global hegemony (well, almost), and the rich accusing the poor of playing obstructionist.

Should the story be left right there?

Of course not. First of all, from India's perspective, the biggest point to note is the clarity the country achieved in its approach to the WTO. There was some waffling, but not much. In fact, the poor countries were led quite clearly at Cancun by a broad grouping known as the G-21. Not only was this a reasonably cohesive group, it was led by the trio of India, China and Brazil - three significant countries, for the very proportion and diversity of humanity they represent. These, as the entire world sat up and saw, have become the three that can say 'no'.

Technically, of course, any country can say no and stop proceedings. The WTO, unlike the UN, operates by consensus. Everybody must agree for any multilateral trade deal to go through. This is both its greatest strength and biggest weakness.

It makes more sense to think of it as a strength, actually. Consensus insists on a win-win decision for everybody, and reminds us that this indeed is possible - and worth working towards as a matter of principle. It is the best guarantee that 'globalization' does not end up as 'gobble-ization'.

And that, ironically, is also why all the 'victors' from Cancun (leadership is always a heady feeling) need to sober up. Sure, the rich world must not be allowed to hold the destiny of poor farmers to ransom by demanding progress on the Singapore issues. The priority order ought to remain what it was when Doha 2001 kicked off --- free trade first, in its finest Ricardian sense.

But what happens next?

Does the world go back to bilateral deals and regional trade blocs? If it does, India, no active member of any regional trading formation, could end up in a rather lonely corner. Multilateral deals are still India's best bet.

It might make sense, then, to ponder the big reason that the Cancun talks broke down: mutual suspicion. The rich countries remain nervous about the prospect of being dependent on poor (possibly hostile) countries for food. The poor remain suspicious of the rich agenda - especially since talk of a 'borderless world' does make one wonder who'll get to lord it over.

Clearly, a lot of talking - with and not at one another --- is still to be done. It's wearisome, but the search for global consensus must never be abandoned. There's too much at stake.

Issue Contents Write to us Subscription Syndication