Questions on WTO' role in the 21st Century
CUTS-TradeForum
From: Amrita Saha, Commonwealth Research Scholar, University of Sussex
A small comment on the assertion regarding Value Chains:
There is evidence that RTAs facilitate Value Chains of a regional character. But, the end product of Value Chains are either exported to world markets or the Regional Value Chains are part of Global Value Chains, which would mean multilateral rules are as important, along with FTAs in the framework of fragmented production. Also, a recent study (WTO, June 2011) points to “trade in tasks” in Value Chains which has important implications for international trade and its global regulation.
Amrita Saha
From: Jagdish Bhagwati, Professor, Columbia University
I am not clear what Ujal means. He seems to accept uncritically many recent assertions such as that the value chains mean that FTAs are better than multilateral WTO. I find the paper disappointing.
Jagdish Bhagwati
Questions on WTO' role in the 21st Century
Respected Readers,
Given below is an article by former Indian Ambassador to the WTO; Ujal Singh Bhatia who has in his own inimitable and erudite style analysed the situtation of the WTO and the Doha Round. He has also raised five pertinent questions, which can determine the future of the WTO in the 21st Century.
These questions include what the 8th WTO Ministerial Conference must do to justify the costs of holding the event, rather than just meet, drink, eat and slap each other on their backs for a 'job not done well'. All are accountable to the taxpayers of the world, and we at CUTS are wedded to this principle.
Regards,
Pradeep S Mehta,
Secretary General,
CUTS International
WTO’s Role in the 21st Century
Ujal Singh Bhatia
India’s Ambassador to the WTO (2004-2010)
Recent developments in Geneva have highlighted the depth of the Doha Round quagmire. The failure of the Members of the World Trade Organisation to agree on an “early harvest” package raises a number of questions not only about the fate of the Doha Round, but also about the future of the WTO itself. Questions will inevitably be raised about the WTO’s continued centrality in the global trading system in the context of the paralysis in its negotiating function which prevents it from raising its game to address the rapid changes in the global trading system.
The lively debate we have witnessed in the CUTS Internet Forum on the Doha Round and the WTO has remained inconclusive. Some contributors have argued that the only way to rescue the WTO is to allow it to discard the Doha baggage or to delink it from the other functions of the WTO. Others remain unconvinced that it is possible to extract the Doha tooth from the WTO mouth painlessly, because in their view, the source of the infection is not in the tooth, but deep in the gums of the WTO. Doubts have also been raised about the practicalities of separation or abandonment as there does not appear to be a large constituency among WTO members for such a step.
The Doha impasse has prevented the WTO from focusing its attention on much needed institutional reform and new issues in the global trade agenda. In view of the deep structural changes taking place in the global economy and the multifarious rules being written into regional trading arrangements, further delay in addressing such issues will increasingly call to question the WTO’s centrality.
The Ministerial Conference of the WTO to be held in December this year (MC8) provides an opportunity for Ministers to address all these issues. A clearer understanding, through a public debate, on the substantive issues Ministers should be addressing in MC8, would be useful in focusing Ministerial minds. The purpose of this note is to flag off such a debate.
Perhaps the most fundamental issue the WTO needs to confront is about its role in the 21st Century – is its central function about trade liberalisation per se, or is to provide a canopy of rules, disciplines and other mechanisms to capture trade liberalisation around the world and to manage global economic interdependence?
There are at least three contexts for such a discussion:
First, the structural changes we are witnessing in global manufacturing and commerce – the unbundling of manufacturing and its dispersal along regional/global value chains, a similar process in a growing range of services leading in many cases, to their off shoring, the spurt in innovation throughout the value chain, etc. RTAs are better geared to providing a framework for liberalisation in such a dynamic trading environment.
Second, the uneven spread of benefits of globalisation among geographies, which threatens to marginalise a large number of poor countries and is spurring calls for “demondialisation” and fuelling protectionist policies in several developed economies.
Third, a number of global challenges which have a bearing on the global trading system are either outside the purview of the WTO or are being inadequately dealt with. These include issues like climate change, food security, energy security, etc.
The real task, therefore, is to equip the WTO with the tools it needs to address current and future challenges in a way that responds to the needs of all players, big and small, and furthers the goal of sustainable globalisation. For this it needs forward looking mandates, institutional capacity and agile processes. Mega Rounds under the debilitating cover of the Single Undertaking are clearly not the answer.
As far as the prospects of the Doha Round in the short term are concerned, it is important to understand the politics behind the wrangling about the “early harvest” package for December. A minimalist LDC package requires the US to approach its Congress without any sweeteners. It is difficult to envisage a positive consideration of such a minimalist package in the US Congress given its ambivalence on issues of international trade and the deep polarisation within it on a range of issues. Apart from this, a LDC package alone will do little to assure other constituencies that the remaining part of the Doha mandate can be successfully negotiated. The challenge before Members is to agree on something beyond the LDC package without conceding too much negotiating leverage required for the final push. At the end of the day though, even an agreement on a package may be a case of “too little, too late”.
In this broad framework, the questions which need to be debated are:
· Is the Doha Round dead for all practical purposes or is it possible to breathe fresh life into it? Will the successful completion of the Round have any significance for the global trading system?
· If it is possible and necessary to revive the Doha Round, what concrete steps do Ministers need to take in MC8?
· What are the key challenges before the WTO? Does it need to reboot itself to address these challenges?
· Is it possible to develop synergy and complementarity between regional liberalisation and the multilateral process? If so, what should the WTO be doing?
· What initiatives should the Ministers launch in MC8 towards institutional reform?
It is essential that the preparation for MC8 moves along the triple tracks of decisive steps (either way) on the Doha Round, a mandate to take up new issues and institutional reform. MC8 has to move out of the sterile script of its predecessor. Another listless, expensive Conference which produces little of significance, will only serve to highlight the organisation’s plight.
This article is prepared at the request of CUTS.
CUTS-TradeForum
From: Huma Fakhar
Very impressed with Ambassador Ujal's article. At the end of the day it does matter who is delivering on ground. And yes FTAs have been much more dynamic for actual trade while WT0 leadership lost itself in trade negotiations. High time to confront real issues than just advocating WT0 as supreme multilateral discipline without the organization proving to be so, that too for so many years now.
Re Alan s comment on finding answers, seems in many cases relevant leadership does not know the real questions.
Ambassador Ujals questions could be a good starting point for a debate focusing only on a solution driven dialogue.
Best
Huma Fakhar
From: Alan Beattie, Financial Times
Yes, all fine but unremarkable, except for refusing to acknowledge that the death of Doha is beyond question - what we need at this stage is people coming up with answers, not asking questions.
Alan Beattie
From: Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Professor of International Political Economy, IMD
Dear Pradeep & all
Ujal Singh Bhatia’s style is indeed inimitable and the contents are erudite, profound and challenging.
I think the problems of Doha and the WTO are much deeper than the ones that concern the Round (Doha) or the institution (WTO). I think they reflect a much deeper malaise and malfunction of global governance and leadership. In an article I wrote recently, I compared the stage of global governance with Luigi Pirandello’s play, “six characters in search of an author” and suggested that an apt title for the state of the world under the (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) “leadership” of the G20 would be “20 characters (plus all the hangers on) in search of a script”. They are completely lost. The only thing that they can be counted on is to smile and wave for the cameras when the curtain comes down. I thought the alleged rape of a poor African immigrant woman by the Director of the IMF was also a very potent image of our times. The poor are getting screwed as Doha and global governance and commitments languish and fail to live up to the minimum of promises made (remember Gleneagles?).
After the climate change meeting in Copenhagen collapsed, I argued that Cancún should be cancelled, since these meetings are not only extremely expensive in money terms, but also with all the travelling, etc, leave a deep environmental imprint. The expense could not be justified on the basis of the expected return. I was, alas, right!
For similar reasons, unless there are very concrete and convincing reasons to expect some positive output, I think we should urge Pascal Lamy to cancel MC8. Instead the WTO should appoint an Eminent Persons Group (EPG) that would address the five key questions Ujal poses at the end of his article.
This will not per se “solve the world’s problems”; but at the very least it will put a stop to the charade that these meetings have become and will save a lot of money at a time of crisis! Ujal should himself definitely be a member of this EPG.
Depending on the outcome, a ministerial meeting could be convened some time in 2012 to debate and ideally implement the recommendations of the EPG.
I am also increasingly of the view that the WTO needs new leadership. Pascal Lamy is exceptional in being a scrupulously honest man and full of boundless energy, but he is too closely associated with Doha (having been European Trade Commissioner at its launch in 2001) and its many setbacks over the last decade. I like him personally and respect him, but I think the time has come for fresh blood.
Jean-Pierre Lehmann
CUTS-TradeForum
From: B.Raj Bhandari, Former Principal Adviser, ITC UNCATD/WTO and presently, Chief Consultant, GTC,(NGO) Geneva
Dear All,
The issues raised in the note by Mr.Ujal Bhatia on the role of WTO in 21st century are critical and crucial not only for WTO but for the sustainability of future global trade and international economic relations. However, his premises on value chain and promotion of FTAs, in my humble view, is totally misplaced and misconceived. Empirical studies on regional trade developments during last 50 years have amply established that while in the short term these may prove beneficial to partner countries but in the longer term they create trade distortion, discrimination and destruction of the rule based multilateral trading system.
The observations made Prof. Lehman about the forth coming Ministerial meeting are equally valid. DOHA was not imposed on WTO but it was thoroughly discussed, deliberated and accepted by WTO to come out of Seattle and Cancun chaos .Any attempt to discard or depose DOHA is likely to create chaotic conditions and continuous discord between have and havenots. During current financial crisis and instability this will cause immense damage to very fabric and entire framework of merging global trade.
Under the circumstances holding of the 8th Ministerial meeting without adequate back stage preparations and full political backing from G-20 is likelt to result in wasteful expenditure and another pee-destined failure.
B.Raj Bhandari
From: Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Professor of International Political Economy, IMD
Dear Pradeep & all
Ujal Singh Bhatia’s style is indeed inimitable and the contents are erudite, profound and challenging.
I think the problems of Doha and the WTO are much deeper than the ones that concern the Round (Doha) or the institution (WTO). I think they reflect a much deeper malaise and malfunction of global governance and leadership. In an article I wrote recently, I compared the stage of global governance with Luigi Pirandello’s play, “six characters in search of an author” and suggested that an apt title for the state of the world under the (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) “leadership” of the G20 would be “20 characters (plus all the hangers on) in search of a script”. They are completely lost. The only thing that they can be counted on is to smile and wave for the cameras when the curtain comes down. I thought the alleged rape of a poor African immigrant woman by the Director of the IMF was also a very potent image of our times. The poor are getting screwed as Doha and global governance and commitments languish and fail to live up to the minimum of promises made (remember Gleneagles?).
After the climate change meeting in Copenhagen collapsed, I argued that Cancún should be cancelled, since these meetings are not only extremely expensive in money terms, but also with all the travelling, etc, leave a deep environmental imprint. The expense could not be justified on the basis of the expected return. I was, alas, right!
For similar reasons, unless there are very concrete and convincing reasons to expect some positive output, I think we should urge Pascal Lamy to cancel MC8. Instead the WTO should appoint an Eminent Persons Group (EPG) that would address the five key questions Ujal poses at the end of his article.
This will not per se “solve the world’s problems”; but at the very least it will put a stop to the charade that these meetings have become and will save a lot of money at a time of crisis! Ujal should himself definitely be a member of this EPG.
Depending on the outcome, a ministerial meeting could be convened some time in 2012 to debate and ideally implement the recommendations of the EPG.
I am also increasingly of the view that the WTO needs new leadership. Pascal Lamy is exceptional in being a scrupulously honest man and full of boundless energy, but he is too closely associated with Doha (having been European Trade Commissioner at its launch in 2001) and its many setbacks over the last decade. I like him personally and respect him, but I think the time has come for fresh blood.
Jean-Pierre Lehmann
From: Jagdish Bhagwati, Professor, Columbia University
I am not clear what Ujal means. He seems to accept uncritically many recent assertions such as that the value chains mean that FTAs are better than multilateral WTO. I find the paper disappointing.
Jagdish Bhagwati
Questions on WTO' role in the 21st Century
Respected Readers,
Given below is an article by former Indian Ambassador to the WTO; Ujal Singh Bhatia who has in his own inimitable and erudite style analysed the situation of the WTO and the Doha Round. He has also raised five pertinent questions, which can determine the future of the WTO in the 21st Century.
CTF
From: Clive George, Senior Research Fellow, University of Manchester
I too was much impressed by Ambassador Ujal’s article, and would like to contribute to the debate with some possible answers to his questions. These come (directly or indirectly) from “The Truth About Trade”, published last year by Zed Books.
Question 1 - Is the Doha Round dead for all practical purposes or is it possible to breathe fresh life into it? Will the successful completion of the Round have any significance for the global trading system?
The Round is most unlikely to achieve its aims, but it has to be concluded to enable a new start. This may mean a face-saving exercise, which achieves more in rhetoric than in reality.
Question 2 - If it is possible and necessary to revive the Doha Round, what concrete steps do Ministers need to take in MC8?
Ministers should 1) produce a package of all that has been agreed so far (no matter how little), 2) issue a statement that makes it seem a lot more, and 3) set out some basic principles for what happens next. The first step would be to abandon the single undertaking, as proposed by Ambassador Ujal. It may then be practicable to initiate discussions/negotiations on specific aspects of the agenda for which there is a good chance of getting agreement. Beyond that, see Question 3.
Question 3 - What are the key challenges before the WTO? Does it need to reboot itself to address these challenges?
One of Ambassador Ujal’s three contexts for debate was that “a number of global challenges which have a bearing on the global trading system are either outside the purview of the WTO or are being inadequately dealt with” (such as climate change, food security, energy security etc.). In this context the WTO cannot proceed satisfactorily in isolation, but needs a new mandate that takes full account of all the issues. Such a mandate can only be set by a global conference of similar stature to Bretton Woods, which addresses all the global challenges and their interactions, and redefines the roles of the relevant institutions. MC8 cannot itself set up such a conference, but it could make an important contribution by identifying the need for it. For such a conference to succeed there may also be a need for in-depth preparatory negotiations between the major parties (USA, EU, India, China, Brazil), equivalent to those which preceded Bretton Woods.
Question 4 - Is it possible to develop synergy and complementarity between regional liberalisation and the multilateral process? If so, what should the WTO be doing?
Yes, but not until the WTO has produced a proper definition of a region - as a geographical entity. For everything else, efforts should be made to re-establish the WTO’s core principle of non-discrimination.
Question 5 - What initiatives should the Ministers launch in MC8 towards institutional reform?
See Question 3. First revise the mandate, then reform the institution accordingly
Clive George
From: Huma Fakhar, Managing Director, MAP Services Group
Very impressed with Ambassador Ujal's article. At the end of the day it does matter who is delivering on ground. And yes FTAs have been much more dynamic for actual trade while WT0 leadership lost itself in trade negotiations. High time to confront real issues than just advocating WT0 as supreme multilateral discipline without the organization proving to be so, that too for so many years now.
Re Alan s comment on finding answers, seems in many cases relevant leadership does not know the real questions.
Ambassador Ujals questions could be a good starting point for a debate focusing only on a solution driven dialogue.
Best
Huma Fakhar
From: Alan Beattie, Financial Times
Yes, all fine but unremarkable, except for refusing to acknowledge that the death of Doha is beyond question - what we need at this stage is people coming up with answers, not asking questions.
Alan Beattie
From: Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Professor of International Political Economy, IMD
Dear Pradeep & all
Ujal Singh Bhatia’s style is indeed inimitable and the contents are erudite, profound and challenging.
I think the problems of Doha and the WTO are much deeper than the ones that concern the Round (Doha) or the institution (WTO). I think they reflect a much deeper malaise and malfunction of global governance and leadership. In an article I wrote recently, I compared the stage of global governance with Luigi Pirandello’s play, “six characters in search of an author” and suggested that an apt title for the state of the world under the (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) “leadership” of the G20 would be “20 characters (plus all the hangers on) in search of a script”. They are completely lost. The only thing that they can be counted on is to smile and wave for the cameras when the curtain comes down. I thought the alleged rape of a poor African immigrant woman by the Director of the IMF was also a very potent image of our times. The poor are getting screwed as Doha and global governance and commitments languish and fail to live up to the minimum of promises made (remember Gleneagles?).
After the climate change meeting in Copenhagen collapsed, I argued that Cancún should be cancelled, since these meetings are not only extremely expensive in money terms, but also with all the travelling, etc, leave a deep environmental imprint. The expense could not be justified on the basis of the expected return. I was, alas, right!
For similar reasons, unless there are very concrete and convincing reasons to expect some positive output, I think we should urge Pascal Lamy to cancel MC8. Instead the WTO should appoint an Eminent Persons Group (EPG) that would address the five key questions Ujal poses at the end of his article.
This will not per se “solve the world’s problems”; but at the very least it will put a stop to the charade that these meetings have become and will save a lot of money at a time of crisis! Ujal should himself definitely be a member of this EPG.
Depending on the outcome, a ministerial meeting could be convened some time in 2012 to debate and ideally implement the recommendations of the EPG.
I am also increasingly of the view that the WTO needs new leadership. Pascal Lamy is exceptional in being a scrupulously honest man and full of boundless energy, but he is too closely associated with Doha (having been European Trade Commissioner at its launch in 2001) and its many setbacks over the last decade. I like him personally and respect him, but I think the time has come for fresh blood.
Jean-Pierre Lehmann
From: Jagdish Bhagwati, Professor, Columbia University
I am not clear what Ujal means. He seems to accept uncritically many recent assertions such as that the value chains mean that FTAs are better than multilateral WTO. I find the paper disappointing.
Jagdish Bhagwati
Questions on WTO' role in the 21st Century
Respected Readers,
Given below is an article by former Indian Ambassador to the WTO; Ujal Singh Bhatia who has in his own inimitable and erudite style analysed the situtation of the WTO and the Doha Round. He has also raised five pertinent questions, which can determine the future of the WTO in the 21st Century.
CTF
From: Dr. P James Daniel Paul, Senior Expert, Investment and Technology Transfer Promotion Unit, United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Just as the associations are necessary for the small businesses, WTO is essential for the developing and the underdeveloped world. [who else can monitor the depreciation competition]
We of course do criticize it [WTO] to polish this pearl not to destroy it.
Doha round may be a failure of outcomes. But it had given a voice and attention to the insignificant traders. The only other explanation is that the FTAs would require more government officials than the WTO would need. The picnic corpus can increase.
Personally I feel that the other views are obviously indoctrinated. India has many officials with affiliations which may not be in the interest of India.
This raises the question of the policy affiliations of the Indian government (which has been under suspicion for quite some time.)
with regards
Daniel
From: B.Raj Bhandari, Former Principal Adviser, ITC UNCATD/WTO and presently, Chief Consultant, GTC,(NGO) Geneva
Dear All,
The issues raised in the note by Mr.Ujal Bhatia on the role of WTO in 21st century are critical and crucial not only for WTO but for the sustainability of future global trade and international economic relations. However, his premises on value chain and promotion of FTAs, in my humble view, is totally misplaced and misconceived. Empirical studies on regional trade developments during last 50 years have amply established that while in the short term these may prove beneficial to partner countries but in the longer term they create trade distortion, discrimination and destruction of the rule based multilateral trading system.
The observations made Prof. Lehman about the forth coming Ministerial meeting are equally valid. DOHA was not imposed on WTO but it was thoroughly discussed, deliberated and accepted by WTO to come out of Seattle and Cancun chaos .Any attempt to discard or depose DOHA is likely to create chaotic conditions and continuous discord between have and havenots. During current financial crisis and instability this will cause immense damage to very fabric and entire framework of merging global trade.
Under the circumstances holding of the 8th Ministerial meeting without adequate back stage preparations and full political backing from G-20 is likelt to result in wasteful expenditure and another pee-destined failure.
B.Raj Bhandari
From: Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Professor of International Political Economy, IMD
CTF
From: MYC Lumbanga, Ambassador & Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Tanzania to the UN
Once again I wish to join the fray on the important issues raised by Ambassador Ujal Bhatia on the next steps in the DDA by giving my brief views as under:-
On Question 1: I don't think the Doha Round is dead. Instead, the truth as we all know, is that the round is deadlocked due to intrenched positions of the major players involved in the negotiations which we are all familiar with. As long as this remains the case WTO as an organization cannot do anything but continue imploring the membership to change course. I don't see a shortcut to that as every member has sovereign rights which they have to protect, the often- repeated rheotoric of the developed economies willingness to assist the poorest of the poor not withstanding.
On Question 2: MC 8 must continue as intended to provide guidance to the negotiators as required from time to time. Their presence in Geneva provides that rare opportunity to keep abreast with WTO issues first hand than when Ministers are in their capitals. Some have suggested that in MC 8 Ministers abandon the single undertaking clause. While I share that view let me remind all that already paragraph 47 of Doha provides for that avenue where issues that have reached an advanced level of consensus among the membership can be harvested without having to wait for closure of negotiations in all other areas of negotiations. That also explains why the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) have been calling for early harvest of some few issues of LDCs interest for the last two years or so in the areas of DFQF Market Access and the Cotton issue both of which were agreed in the Hong Kong Ministerial of 2005 but its implementation remains a dream on the pretext that things have changed since. A third issue being advanced by the LDCs concerns is the granting of a Services Waiver to LDCs which also enjoys substantial support from the membership.
On Question 3: I do not see any reason for the WTO itself to reboot itself or change its mandate so as to address the challenges now facing the organization by including other issues like climate change, etc. While these issues are important too but adding them in the new mandate of the WTO will not achieve any benefit. If anything, such a measure will only complicate matters. I see this as equivalent to someone who is unable to lift a bundle of firewood in a forest going back to cut more firewood. It just cannot work in my opinion.
On Question 4: Concerns on synergies and complementarity between regional liberalisation and the multilateral process are already being dealt with by individual member countries in their trade policy review processes in which WTO, UNCTAD, and other trade related organizations are assisting member countries in need of such support.
On Question 5: As already explained in question 3 above I don't believe there is any need for any institutional changes in the WTO. What is critical is for the membership to re-examine their negotiating positions with a view to achieving a viable Multilateral Trading System that will benefit all-rich and poor, as trade plays an increasing role in country development globally today than any time in the past.
MYC Lumbanga
From: Clive George, Senior Research Fellow, University of Manchester
I too was much impressed by Ambassador Ujal’s article, and would like to contribute to the debate with some possible answers to his questions. These come (directly or indirectly) from “The Truth About Trade”, published last year by Zed Books.
Question 1 - Is the Doha Round dead for all practical purposes or is it possible to breathe fresh life into it? Will the successful completion of the Round have any significance for the global trading system?
The Round is most unlikely to achieve its aims, but it has to be concluded to enable a new start. This may mean a face-saving exercise, which achieves more in rhetoric than in reality.
Question 2 - If it is possible and necessary to revive the Doha Round, what concrete steps do Ministers need to take in MC8?
Ministers should 1) produce a package of all that has been agreed so far (no matter how little), 2) issue a statement that makes it seem a lot more, and 3) set out some basic principles for what happens next. The first step would be to abandon the single undertaking, as proposed by Ambassador Ujal. It may then be practicable to initiate discussions/negotiations on specific aspects of the agenda for which there is a good chance of getting agreement. Beyond that, see Question 3.
Question 3 - What are the key challenges before the WTO? Does it need to reboot itself to address these challenges?
One of Ambassador Ujal’s three contexts for debate was that “a number of global challenges which have a bearing on the global trading system are either outside the purview of the WTO or are being inadequately dealt with” (such as climate change, food security, energy security etc.). In this context the WTO cannot proceed satisfactorily in isolation, but needs a new mandate that takes full account of all the issues. Such a mandate can only be set by a global conference of similar stature to Bretton Woods, which addresses all the global challenges and their interactions, and redefines the roles of the relevant institutions. MC8 cannot itself set up such a conference, but it could make an important contribution by identifying the need for it. For such a conference to succeed there may also be a need for in-depth preparatory negotiations between the major parties (USA, EU, India, China, Brazil), equivalent to those which preceded Bretton Woods.
Question 4 - Is it possible to develop synergy and complementarity between regional liberalisation and the multilateral process? If so, what should the WTO be doing?
Yes, but not until the WTO has produced a proper definition of a region - as a geographical entity. For everything else, efforts should be made to re-establish the WTO’s core principle of non-discrimination.
Question 5 - What initiatives should the Ministers launch in MC8 towards institutional reform?
See Question 3. First revise the mandate, then reform the institution accordingly
Clive George
From: Huma Fakhar, Managing Director, MAP Services Group
Very impressed with Ambassador Ujal's article. At the end of the day it does matter who is delivering on ground. And yes FTAs have been much more dynamic for actual trade while WT0 leadership lost itself in trade negotiations. High time to confront real issues than just advocating WT0 as supreme multilateral discipline without the organization proving to be so, that too for so many years now.
Re Alan s comment on finding answers, seems in many cases relevant leadership does not know the real questions.
Ambassador Ujals questions could be a good starting point for a debate focusing only on a solution driven dialogue.
Best
Huma Fakhar
From: Alan Beattie, Financial Times
Yes, all fine but unremarkable, except for refusing to acknowledge that the death of Doha is beyond question - what we need at this stage is people coming up with answers, not asking questions.
Alan Beattie
From: Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Professor of International Political Economy, IMD
CTF
The GATT-WTO System in a Different World from that which Originated it: Can a renovating boost be expected from the Geneva Ministerial Conference?
"The upcoming Cannes G20 Summit and the Geneva WTO Ministerial Conference offer an opportunity for organised regions to take up an active role in the redefinition of the architecture of the international trade system", says Félix Peña in his monthly newsletter. Pena is Director of the Institute of International Trade at the Standard Bank Foundation and Director of the Masters Degree in International Trade Relations at Tres de Febrero National University (UNTREF), Beunos Aires, Argentina.
Pena's newsletter report takes forward the discussion on pertinent questions on determing the future of the WTO in the 21st century raised earlier in this forum by Ujal Singh Bhatia, former Indian Ambassador to the WTO.
The newsletter report says that at least three questions appear as relevant for the much needed debate on the future of the WTO. These are: How would it be possible to prevent the definite collapse of the Doha Round, at least concluding it in a less ambitious version to that which was originally planned? If this were feasible, how could the WTO be preserved from the eventual negative impact that such collapse would have on its effectiveness, credibility and relevance? And even in the case that the Doha Round were recoverable, how could political energy and technical ingenuity be harnessed for the design of a new stage of the WTO that can profit from the accumulated experience, strengthen its essential functions and innovate in its agenda of priorities, work methods and negotiation modalities?
The full newsletter is available at