The World Trade Organization (WTO), established in 1995, is the only formalized worldwide organization that deals with trade amongst nations. It is comprised of 153 member governments, as of July 2008. While in the past, conferences and negotiations have been successful in creating new pathways for beneficial trade for both developed and developing nations, the Doha conference has not yielded a comprehensive trade agreement. This news analysis will take a deeper look into the facts and opinions relating to the collapse of these talks, and what it means for the future of world trade and globalization.

The Doha conference, or the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, first convened in November 2001. Having missed both its deadlines in 2005 and 2006 for progress, it is clear that the negotiations and implementation of expected trade rules are amiss. The most recent round of negotiations between the developed and developing nations occurred from July 23-29, 2008, but broke when the member governments failed to reach a suitable compromise on agricultural imports.

The Doha Development Agenda and its role in recent negotiations

The Doha Development Agenda is the main trade agenda since the Doha conference in 2001. It is primarily focused on opening markets worldwide but particularly in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors. It also is heavily interested in more intellectual property laws and regulations in order to make trade fair for developing nations. Most recently, trade negotiations broke down because of agricultural import disagreements, which is an important concern for developing nations which base a large part of their economies on agriculture.

Continuous collapse of negotiations, 2003-2008

The Cancun round of discussions in 2003 fell apart because of stubbornness and an unwillingness to negotiate, as well as the drastic difference in opinions between developed and developing nations across the board. The United States, along with the European Union, had much different conceptualizations of and approaches to issues than the developing nations (headed by India, Brazil, China, and South Africa). The member nations did not reach a consensus because of these differences, especially over the “Singapore issues” (e.g. negotiations on investment, competition policies, government transparency, and trade facilitation) as well as agriculture.¹

The year 2004 saw some movement forward, producing the Framework Agreement which held the broad overview of the Doha round and its agenda. It set deadlines for negotiation and implementation which later flopped. The Paris talks in 2005 renewed the protests and disagreements, with the developed and developing countries splitting on issues of livestock (for consumption) and agriculture.²

Geneva (2006) and Potsdam (2007) talks reached a deadlock as nations failed to reach agreements about farming, subsidies, and import taxes, especially on the issue of how to cut farming subsidies in developed countries.

Perhaps the greatest sign of failure of these talks is the 2008 Geneva talks, in which the United States and the developing countries came to a complete impasse. After five years of negotiations with little progress, the future is dim for the Doha round of negotiations. During the 2008 discussions, the United States wanted to prevent trade barriers while India and China wanted to raise them, resulting in a dearth of negotiations. Additionally, there has been no agreement on what the trading terms are for banana-exporting nations or cotton-producing countries.

Because they cannot even compromise on the primary issues, the member nations did not address any of the region-specific problems. The major issues for the 2008 talks include:³

• Domestic producers' concern of reducing protection for their respective industries
• Banana crop concerns, with Latin America wanting greater access to Europe but facing opposition from Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific
• Developing countries' worries that “they are being asked to allow too much access for manufactured goods to their markets”

The 2008 Geneva talks, according to BBC World News, are extremely important economically and historically because they represent a shift away from the trade liberalization process that has been the impetus for globalization since World War II. It also displayed the actions of developing powerhouses India, China, and Brazil to counterbalance the strength of the United States and the European Union.⁴

After the World Trade Organization

It is unlikely that current trade negotiations will proceed in the future as they have now. After the collapse of the 2008 Geneva talks, there has been a great deal of finger-pointing and clamor to blame others for the impasse. With agriculture as an important focus for both developed and developing nations, it will be hard to determine the outcome, if one is at all possible.

Some use the Doha round as an example of how poorly the World Trade Organization has done in gathering member nations together for collaboration and compromise. These individuals believe that the WTO actually impedes global trade, and that it has failed on a number of levels; instead, they argue that the aim should be “facilitating trade between willing countries.”⁵ They emphasize the failures of the WTO to ameliorate trade conditions for farmers worldwide and to uphold democratic governance of nations.

Others yet do not incriminate the WTO for failures, but the media – particularly Western media – for failing to display the facts and figures related to the Doha round. Anup Shah asserts that if democratic governance and fair trade is the aim, then failing to show citizens trade issues is nearly undemocratic.⁶

Since talks are not to resume again until 2009, the next major factor that will influence the scope and reach of the WTO, as well as the success of the Doha round, will be the outcome of the US election in November 2008. Depending on the newly elected president, the collaboration could result differently than it has in the past five years; Republican John McCain is running on a platform of strict free trade with lower subsidies and trade barriers, while Democrat candidate Barack Obama seeks to protect American producers.

The outcome of the Doha round does not look positive at this point, but it will largely depend on elected officials and the shifting balance between the emerging powerhouse nations (India, Brazil, and China) and the established ones with a stronghold (the United States and the European Union). While India is attempting to get the negotiation process up to par for next year's talks, it looks unlikely that either side will concede enough to reach any deadlines or goals that have been set previously.