Following his report for Developments on the WTO’s 1999 meeting in Seattle, John Madeley gives his view of events in Doha.

Doha 2001: it was all so different to Seattle 1999, yet there were similarities. Trade ministers from the member countries of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) met in the Qatari capital to try to launch a new round of talks to further liberalise world trade, which they failed to do in 1999.

In Seattle, 50,000 people surrounded the conference hall, causing the opening meeting to be abandoned. In Doha, no one was to be seen on the city’s wide streets. The only things that moved were limos taking trade ministers from the WTO’s 142 member countries to the meeting’s venue, and buses carrying officials, press and representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

This time the security left nothing to chance, especially after September’s terrorist attacks in the US. Every quarter of a mile or so a heavily-manned road block, complete with armed guards, held up the vehicles; police cars were dotted in between blocks while helicopters circled overhead.

Amid the tight security, not a single protest was seen on the streets. In Seattle, the drama had been both outside and within the ministerial meeting. In Doha, it was concentrated in the meeting. And here similarities with Seattle were clear. Ministers from developing countries were again expressing anger that the draft declaration under discussion did not reflect their concerns. Working together well, they united in Doha to stand up for the kind of trade round they wanted.

Strong statements on the eve of the meeting from India’s trade minister Murasoli Maran about the marginalisation of developing countries had helped raise morale. In a ‘fringe’ meeting, Mr Maran told developing country trade ministers: “India stands firmly and without reservation with the position taken by all developing countries collectively”.

In the end, the ministerial meeting continued right through the night, for 18 hours longer than scheduled. It concluded with ministers agreeing a declaration that launches a “work programme to address the challenges facing the multilateral trading system” – in other words, a new round of talks to liberalise world trade.

But agreement to start negotiations was in doubt almost to the very last minute. India stood its ground on the common position of developing countries that it could not accept the four “new issues” that the European Union wanted in the round. These issues – initially floated at the WTO’s first ministerial in Singapore in 1996 and hence known as the Singapore issues – are the relationship between trade and investment, competition policy, transparency in government procurement, and trade facilitation (the simplification of customs procedures).

Throughout the Doha meeting, developing country trade ministers made a strong case against the inclusion of these issues. “For one thing, we don’t understand these new issues; there’s no point in including them, it just won’t work,” said Iddi Mohamed Simba, Tanzania’s minister for trade and industry. Others also argued that many issues from the last round of talks – the Uruguay Round, concluded in 1993 – were still to be implemented.

Agriculture was a further source of controversy in Doha. Most countries wanted negotiations on agriculture in the new round to be conducted with a view to “phasing out” the export subsidies paid to farmers. But European Commissioner Franz Fischler felt that such wording prejudged the outcome of talks. In the end, at the EU’s insistence, the wording was agreed: “without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations we commit ourselves to comprehensive negotiations aimed at: substantial improvements in market access; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies...” The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy subsidises EU farmers to produce food for the domestic market and for export, which in turn can lead to surpluses and the dumping (selling off cheaply) of such surpluses in developing countries to the detriment of local farmers. It also limits access to EU markets of agricultural produce. But as the phasing out of export subsidies is likely to take some time, it could be years before developing countries benefit.

The clarification of an existing WTO agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPS) as it affects public health was a “plus” for developing countries. They want the freedom to override patent laws to manufacture or import low-cost medicines to treat HIV/AIDS and other killer diseases. The ministerial declaration says that the TRIPS agreement “does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health”.

The final declaration agreed by ministers represents a compromise. On the new issues, it says: “we agree that negotiations will take place after the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference (in 2003) on the basis of a decision to be taken, by explicit consensus, at that session on modalities of negotiations”. Negotiations are therefore delayed for at least two years. The meeting’s chairman, Qatar’s trade and commerce minister Youssef Kamal, added in a statement that at the fifth ministerial, any WTO member country could veto negotiations on the issues. The new round of talks will cover services, tariffs on industrial goods, electronic commerce, WTO rules and certain aspects of the environment.

Some NGOs felt that an opportunity was missed in Doha to launch a development round as called for by Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, and Mike Moore, director-general of the WTO. Mark Curtis of Christian Aid noted that the role of transnational corporations in international trade was not raised at the meeting. “It’s like a conference on malaria that does not discuss the mosquito,” he said. But although two-thirds of world trade is between the corporations, they lie outside the WTO’s remit.

A number of other NGOs took the view that the ministerial declaration is weak on poverty elimination. “There is just not enough emphasis on the needs of the poor,” said Jayanti Durai of Consumers International. Others, though, sensed a more positive change at the meeting. Victoria Tauli-Corpus, of the Philippines-based NGO Indigenous People’s International Centre for Policy Research and Education, praised the way developing countries had united together to oppose the inclusion of new issues in another round. Mudaki Mwendya from the Ugandan National Farmers Association, who had travelled to Doha with a party of 23 Ugandan delegates, felt there were positive signs that “poor countries may now be better informed and better equipped to fight their corner.”

Eventually, the meeting ended with ministers from the WTO’s 142 member countries (a total increased by the admission of China and Taiwan) agreeing a declaration that launches a “work programme... to address the challenges facing the multilateral trading system” – in other words, a new round of talks to liberalise world trade.

John Madeley is a journalist and broadcaster on development issues.

Images © John Madeley