DOHA, Qatar – At the core of the World Trade Organization is a contradiction that turns every meeting of trade ministers into an excruciating, exhausting trip to the negotiating dentist.
Everybody wants to get to trade heaven but nobody really wants to die.
All of its 142 nation members presumably have joined because they believe increased trade is a remedy for what ails their economies, a ticket to more prosperity.
But at heart, nations want the part of the trade deal that benefits them, while looking for a way to avoid the parts that could hurt.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Meanwhile, the trade debate has become an ideologically and politically entrenched clash of ideas and values that makes compromise difficult.
All that conflict was on display as delegates to the WTO strained and struggled through last weekend and into this week to find compromise language that would allow the launch of new negotiations.
As at Seattle two years ago, the divide is defined as much by overarching philosophies as it is by dispute over nitty-gritty policy details.
Everybody arrived in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar Nov. 9 proclaiming their support for trade and the launch of a new round of negotiations.
Behind that motherhood statement, other agendas were at play.
- The Cairns Group: This alliance of 18 trade-aggressive countries figures their agricultural export industries are among the most efficient in the world. They can win in world markets so borders should be open and competitive advantage should rule.
Of course, many of those 18 countries are developing economies or, like Canada, have trade-sensitive sectors, so some members believe there must be restrictions on all-out free trade to avoid losses.
As the spiritual leader of the Cairns group, Australia does not generally support exceptions and is frustrated by the foot-draggers. As for Canada’s dairy and poultry industries with their tariff protections, they are little more than honorary Europeans.
- The European Union: It repeats endlessly its role as one of the world’s greatest importers and a friend of the developing world. It also is more transparent than most in asserting that its farmers need continued domestic and export subsidies so that it can continue to ‘compete’ in markets and export excess production.
- The United States: It parades as a leader in the free trade movement, in part because it believes its products can win market share. High U.S. domestic subsidies protect farmers, the country continues to apply anti-dumping penalties against any imports it considers unfair and some sensitive sectors are protected.
- The developing world: Its members see trade as an economy builder but its farmers need exemption from many free trade rules while gaining better access to foreign markets and rich-country help in developing the agricultural sector.
It is a soup of contradictory definitions and expectations of “liberalized trade” that makes the WTO a divided, dysfunctional club at the best of times.
If agreeing to the mandate for a mere launch of talks creates such division, the ultimate detailed negotiations promise to be a dragged out and bitter affair with no guarantee of success.
