Trade Talks' Failure
Weighs on Other Issues
Global Cooperation Falters, Clouding Hopes on Emissions
By BOB DAVIS in Washington and JOHN W. MILLER in Geneva
Wall Street Journal
July 31, 2008; Page A10
The demise of the Doha
world trade talks because of splits between wealthy and developing nations
suggests other global undertakings, from slashing greenhouse-gas emissions to
ending food-export restrictions, also will face hurdles.
Efforts at global cooperation are all grappling with the
same forces: a resurgence of nationalism across the globe, muscle-flexing by
emerging economic giants such as China
and India, and a fraying of
the Cold War ties that bound many developing countries to the U.S. and Europe.
"The way the Doha Round collapsed is a preview of what we're likely to see
in other negotiations," said Kimberly Elliott, a senior fellow for the
Center for Global Development, a Washington
think tank. "Emerging markets [such as China
and India]
are taking a big role," she said, sometimes elbowing out even poorer
nations.
"If the Doha Round repeatedly fails, this will cast
doubt on the ability of all parties to find solutions to complex problems, such
as climate change, high oil prices and food prices within a global
framework," said a commentary by China's official Xinhua news
agency.
The Doha Round collapsed after China
and India
insisted on having the right to reimpose tariffs --
or raise them -- if there were a surge in food imports. In terms of impact on
economic growth, the issues at stake in the round were fairly small compared to
the global-warming debate. Limiting the rise of greenhouse gases could hit
growth by forcing industry to retool factories and consumers to alter
lifestyles. That sacrifice could prompt an even fiercer reaction from New Delhi and Beijing.
The U.S.
is similarly worried about how a global climate-change regime would affect
economic growth. During Senate discussion recently on a plan to cap emissions
through a system of tradable pollution permits, much of the focus was on how to
penalize countries such as China
and India
if they didn't also limit emissions. Essentially, the bill would have imposed
tariffs on imports of steel, iron, glass, cement and paper from such countries.
"There is more support in the Senate for the import [restriction] provision
-- a China bashing measure
-- than the overall cap-and-trade system," said Robert Stavins,
a Harvard University expert on global-warming
policy
The U.S.
cap-and-trade measure failed on a procedural vote. But a version of the bill is
bound to come up again next year because both presidential candidates back
cap-and-trade systems.
Negotiators had been working on a Doha trade agreement for seven years, and
often stalled. At this week's Geneva trade
summit, the parties seemed closer than ever to reaching a deal because the U.S. and Europe
had made long-sought concessions on agricultural subsidies. They hoped to
entice developing nations to open their markets further to U.S and European
manufacturers and service companies. Brazil, a leader among developing
nations and a big agricultural exporter, signed on. Despite intense pressure to
go along, India and China balked.
Under World Trade Organization rules, all 153 members must
agree on a deal. In practice, only the economically important players get a
real say. No African country was among the seven nations that conducted most of
the negotiations. The issue of U.S.
cotton subsidies, which is of vital interest to Africa's
four cotton-producing nations, wasn't even discussed.
The failure of the talks isn't likely to have big effects
immediately on the flow of world trade or on economic growth. Outside of
agriculture and textiles, trade barriers generally are low globally because of
decades of tariff cutting. But the consequences of the failure were still significant
because of the message about the difficulty in reaching global agreements.
"This is the first failure of a multilateral trade
agreement since the 1930s," an era of protectionism, said Fred Bergsten,
director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The absence of
trade liberalization, he predicted, would lead to an increase in efforts to
protect domestic industries around the globe from competition. Although WTO
chief Pascal Lamy held out hope that the talks could
be revived once again, European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the Geneva
talks represented a "burial" for the Doha round.
Given the U.S.'s
leading role in trade policy, the Doha
failure essentially hands off the issue to the next president, who is unlikely
to make it a top priority. Daniel Tarullo, a
Georgetown University law professor who advises Sen. Barack Obama, said
"U.S. negotiators were right to walk away from what was shaping up to be a
bad deal for the United States," although he said negotiators "should
not abandon their efforts." Philip Levy, an American Enterprise Institute
economist who advises Sen. John McCain, said the inability to reach a deal
"calls into question some of the underpinnings of the global trading
system."
Instead of global deals, patchwork efforts on global trade
issues may become the norm. In another area of global concern -- the barriers
to food exports erected by several dozen countries in response to rising prices
-- the World Bank has tried to persuade countries individually to change their
policies by appealing to their national interests. The bank's president, Robert
Zoellick, a former U.S. trade representative, argued
to countries that they will wreck their credibility as exporters if they cut
back in times of global trouble.
Future trade deals may focus more on narrower national
interests, rather than Doha-style talks that call for countries to make
concessions in one area to make gains in another. One possible model is a kind
of "coalition of the willing" approach. The
model is the Information Technology Agreement signed in 1996, which set zero
tariffs on new technology goods for countries that signed on. About half the
WTO's members have done so.
--Charles Forelle in Brussels and Andrew Batson in Beijing contributed to this article.
online.wsj.com