What went right in Cancun?

In spite of the numerous articles, broadcast items and stories on the recently concluded WTO Ministerial Summit in Cancun, Mexico prior to the meeting, there has been an almost deafening silence regarding the outcome. 

Two statements on the aftermath — one by Pascal Lamy, European Union Director of Development and James Fen-dell, President of the Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America, have not been publicised in the media, but circulated to a select group on the Internet.  Both treatments regard the collapse of the WTO Ministerial in Cancun as a “missed opportunity for the world economy.” In determining whe-ther such an evaluation is correct, we must begin to develop criteria based on our own interests as a people and a society. The assumption that rich as well as poor countries would benefit from a conclusion to the Doha Development Agenda negotiations, is not shared by opponents of the global, neo-liberalism in metropolitan countries. Similarly, governments representing 144 million people living in poverty in developing countries, which allegedly stood to see national incomes boosted to $500 billion a year by 2015, were also unconvinced by such rosy projections.


Shadow cast on FTAA
A shadow of doubt has thus been cast on prospects for consensus for an FTAA, carded for January 2005, whom advocates had hoped for a mandate out of Cancun to accelerate efforts at hemispheric trade liberalisation and integration.  In particular, the contradiction between domestic support (read subsidies) for agriculture in the developed world was viewed as a blatant inconsistency in the application of principles of free trade as advocated by those nations’ representatives for developing countries.  In an apparent case of “what’s good for the goose, is not good for the gander,” these incongruities in liberalisation were sufficient to derail (at least temporarily) the global free trade agenda. But if much went wrong in Cancun, the question remains, “what went right?”  What are the implications for the global economy and trade liberalisation?  If an analogy can be permitted with the recent energy blackout in parts of the Northeast United States and Canada, clearly policy-makers took for granted the readiness of the national power grid and its capacity to supply electricity in spite of growing demands for service.

Likewise, a lot was taken for granted by the organisers of the WTO Trade Ministerial in Cancun. Certainly, the decision of Botswana, coordinator of the Group of Developing Countries to walk out on the talks in the face of a revised Ministerial draft declaration proposing transparency in government procurement, preempted any serious negotiations on agriculture. So one thing that went right, is that negotiators finally took seriously some fundamental issues of principles of equity and reciprocity as the basis to proceed and without which no negotiation in the real sense is possible. Emotions rode high as US and EU reluctance to reform agriculture was highlighted by the suicide in Cancun of a protesting farmer from Korea, which maintains some of the highest tariff and non-tariff barriers against agricultural imports in the world.  Japan also refused to make concessions to opening its domestic market to imported food.  Such developments need to be reflected upon by domestic farmers in Trinidad and Tobago, threatened by lowering import barriers to chicken and other agricultural products, if consumer prices are not reduced.  It is important to remember that such fiscal policies have implications for free trade and domestic export capacity which are not often considered publicly before they are implemented.

What about the Caribbean?
So what about small econo-mies of the Caribbean, which a few years ago witnessed the end of preferential market access of West Indian bananas into Europe under the Lome Convention?  Surely, US subsidy grants to its cotton farmers, must have seemed unacceptable to rice and sugar producer/exporters facing the prospect of market and even industry closure, when US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick told the media that developing countries had “missed the opportunity to cut our (US$100 billion) subsidies for domestic agriculture that distorts production and trade.”  What went right at Cancun is that the glaring contradictions in the terms of international trade are now out in the open.  The intransigence of negotiating regimes in the North and South has spilled out from the conference and into the streets, across the tabloids and broadcasting networks of the world, focusing public attention on the need for much greater consultation, public information and education than has thus far existed on subject areas which held far-reaching consequences for the lives of ordinary people in the north and the south.


Little time left
The implications of the failure of Cancun, like the relative success of Doha and the failure of the Seattle WTO Trade Ministerial, are a likely proliferation of smaller scale trade liberalisation arrangements and bi-lateral free trade agreements such as between Caricom and Central America or the Trinidad and Tobago - Venezuela proposed Trans-Caribbean liquid natural gas pipeline.  The post mortem on Cancun provides precious little time and opportunity for the small nations such as Trinidad and Tobago and Caricom to accelerate regional integration efforts such as the Caricom Single Market and Economy in an effort to put in place trade leverage associate with economies of scope and scale that will strengthen the position of the region when negotiations resume.

Whether one embraces trade liberalisation at the hemispheric and global level or one stridently opposes it; whether we follow these developments, keenly, with casual interest or are oblivious to them, they proceed and do so with definite impact on our daily lives.  It behooves all thinking people to follow these discussions and reports about them so as to better understand the global trading system and its liberalising path.  We don’t have to be in favour of or against Hurricane Isabel.  If we know it’s coming, we have to prepare for it.  We have to ensure that we are as ready as we can be and as long as they won’t be blown over, to put some barrels to catch some of the water that could be potable in the aftermath as we survey the devastation wrought by the hurricane and need a drink to slake our thirst.


The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Guardian Life. You are invited to send your comments to guardianlife@ghl.co.tt

Comments

"What went right in Cancun?"

More in this section