Peter Gallagher

A long arti­cle by Alan Beat­tie, World Trade edi­tor of the Finan­cial Times, today assesses the dis­ap­point­ing state of the Doha round WTO nego­ti­a­tions as Min­is­ters from 149 mem­ber coun­tries (wel­come, Saudi Ara­bia) pre­pare for their con­fer­ence in Hong Kong. Beattie’s con­clu­sion is a guarded endorse­ment of the mul­ti­lat­eral approach; risky and slow but less prej­u­di­cial to devel­op­ing coun­tries and more valu­able than a trad­ing sys­tem orga­nized on bilat­eral lines.

Beat­tie seeks answers to the ques­tion: “Is the game worth the can­dle?”

He quotes the great …

Chair­man of BP and first WTO Director-General, Peter Suther­land: “We are now fac­ing an extremely dan­ger­ous situation”

the aggrieved …

Zam­bian Ambas­sador Dipak Patel: “This is sup­posed to be a devel­op­ment round, not a mar­ket access round”

the agri­cul­tural …

Aus­trian farm min­is­ter, Joseph Pröll: “I do not want see the process of brinkman­ship being replaced by one of blamesmanship”

and, the antag­o­nis­tic.

Dr Razeen Sally at LSE: “These are all symp­toms of the increas­ing UN-isation of the WTO”

He also briefly quotes my arti­cle on the remain­ing wig­gle room

How does he answer his ques­tion? What value should we put on the mul­ti­lat­eral trad­ing sys­tem? As any econ­o­mist would, Beat­tie con­sid­ers the oppor­tu­nity cost, with a warn­ing that we may bear it if the Doha round fizzles:

“In the end, the devel­op­ing coun­tries will have more to lose than rich nations from the under­min­ing of the WTO as a nego­ti­at­ing forum. But the con­tin­ual delay and intran­si­gence mean that even their patience has been sorely tried. A failed or weak agree­ment on Doha could be the last effort of its kind.”( FT Com­ment & analy­sis – The mul­ti­lat­eral approach is called into ques­tion )