Over the past few days, trade ministers from scores of countries have spent hours flogging the long-dead horse that is the Doha round of global trade talks in Nairobi – and hardly anyone noticed. The World Trade Organisation, which convened last week’s conference, was once regularly targeted by protesters as the secretive, all-powerful puppet master of global capitalism.
Back in 1999, in the innocent days before the sub-prime crisis laid bare the sinister power of international finance, WTO talks in Seattle broke down amid clouds of tear gas, as anti-capitalist protesters expressed their fury at the rigged rules of the global marketplace, which, as they saw it, entrenched the wealth of the rich and excluded the poor. Yet last week’s gathering, attended by Britain’s Lord (Francis) Maude, barely registered with the world’s angry young radicals, who have turned their attention to bashing bankers – through the Occupy movement, for example.
As it became clearer in recent years that the Doha round was dying, the anti-poverty campaigners who once spent hours poring over the intricate details of cotton subsidies and sugar tariffs have moved on too.
Launched in late 2001, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in New York, the Doha round was meant to open up new opportunities for developing countries to trade their way out of poverty and drive the next stage of what then seemed the unstoppable progress of globalisation.
But 14 years of talks have failed to yield an achievable deal; indeed, the issues dividing the main protagonists have barely shifted since negotiations collapsedacrimoniously in Geneva in July 2008. Back then, I watched US trade representative Susan Schwab lambast her Indian and Chinese counterparts for wanting to protect their farmers from cut-price imports. This issue of “special safeguards” was still being scrapped over in Nairobi.
The one-country-one-vote constitution that makes the WTO a more democratic institution than, for example, the International Monetary Fund, also makes negotiations cumbersome and decision-making clunky.Doha failed for many reasons, some more worrisome than others. It was probably always far too ambitious to try to tie up simultaneous deals across agriculture, manufacturing and services. The hope was that countries would give ground in some areas in return for concessions elsewhere, but this unwieldy, triple-track approach meant deadlock in one area led to comprehensive failure.
Political capital was another key challenge: lowering barriers to foreign competition is a tough domestic sell, especially in hard times when workers feel their jobs may be vulnerable. Optimists at the WTO’s Geneva headquarters hoped President Obama would swing his weight behind their efforts to improve the global trading system, but other priorities – not least the fraught passing of his healthcare reforms – have always seemed more pressing in Washington, where suspicion of unfettered free trade runs deep on both sides of Congress.
And most recently, a flowering of “plurilateral” deals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and Japan, has seen groups of like-minded countries – economic coalitions of the willing – sign up to liberalisation on their own terms.
Meanwhile, the nature of contemporary capitalism means the hot political issues are no longer import tariffs or agricultural subsidies but international taxation, financialisation and freedom of movement for migrant workers.
If Doha is dead, some noble aspirations will be buried with it. It was conceived as a “development round” – offering poor countries a stake in the global trading system to tackle poverty and prevent them from becoming recruiting grounds for terrorism. It became increasingly clear, though, that rich countries were unwilling, or politically unable, to offer much without a quid pro quo – and developing countries don’t have much to give.
Afghanistan became the WTO’s latest fully signed-up member in Nairobi last week. (This was one of the few concrete announcements to come out of the summit.) But it is joining a train that has been stuck in the station for more than a decade.So what began as an expression of the spirit of internationalism quickly descended into a series of cross-cutting mercantilist spats. And while trade liberalisation continues apace through plurilateral deals between powerful trading blocs, these rarely include the poorest countries.
The WTO still has a crucial role to play, as the policeman of the world’s trading system. But after 14 years of deadlock, the ideal of deepening economic relationships between rich and poor, north and south, in a way that would be mutually beneficial and to which all member countries could sign up has been extinguished.
Even protesters who once saw the WTO as the evil headquarters of capitalism red in tooth and claw might spare a moment to lament the fading of one-country-one-vote multilateralism it represented. (The Paris climate talks provided a heartening counter-example – albeit with few details as to how new emissions targets will be met.)
But for those on the left who dream of collective global solutions to the other pressing ills of modern capitalism, from tax avoidance to reckless financiers, 14 years of failure ought to give pause for thought.
The lack of dialogue about (or, as a corollary, from) such an important global institution such as the World Trade Organization is elucidative of its underutilized status in society amid what is perceived as more "pressing" societal issues such as the regulation of capitalism, systemic inequality, or financial oversight.
ReplyDeleteThe Doha Development Round, a program meant to tackle persistent issues within global emerging and developing economies, is representative of this contemporary issue.
What is particularly interesting is how the sociopolitical issues that are present in domestic politics manifest in international ones as well, sometimes even having more global implications. The idea that deadlock or extinguished opportunities within the scopes of the WTO is completely representative of this, as the political capital involved in such decisions (just as those in the American government) can have the capacity to either push or stall a decision, as was the case in Doha round talks after 14 years of discussions.
The idea that bureaucracy and lack of constructive outcome from extensive dialogue is the hallmark of modern day society and something that needs to be carefully considered as some of the implications are great.
The stagnation causes frustration from any standpoint and the WTO being around for 20 years begs the question of its usefulness. I think its effect could be a powerful one but since it is an NGO the world downplays its importance. Whether that downplaying is a purposeful act by the sociopolitical environment is a different conversation. There is no doubt that globalization has led to growth of emerging economies and aided in the advancement of many industries but an interdependence can be cause for concern. When the EU was formed after the end of WW2, the European Community back then, it had the same intentions as the Doha round. Europe's growth exploded in the steel and coal industries because trade barriers were removed between countries and allowed the flow of capital and capital goods to move freely. For the many years following the agreement there were currency wars that kept participating countries economies in volatile states and outside nations stemmed away from investment in these countries because of it. But this was done by governments and I think the biggest headwind for the organization is being recognized as an asset to participating governments. No government is going to let an international organization take their resources and trade them more freely. Speaking to a previous point that although the intention of Doha is good its actual affect will be limited.
ReplyDeleteThe above post describes the concerns one may have when thinking about the importance we have put on the World Trade Organization (WTO) and how much impact the organization may or may not have. The post leaves one thinking about the changes in importance that society as put on the WTO- the post states that at one point the organization was notorious as having as much importance as a “secretive, all-powerful puppet master of global capitalism”. The WTO involving the launch of the Doha Round in 2001 focused their efforts on crating new opportunities for developing and therefore less prosperous countries to trade, regardless of political opinion, and to continue on the rapid pace of globalization.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the above post, the utilization and implementation of Doha’s efforts have failed. The post states, “The hope was that countries would give ground in some areas in return for concessions elsewhere, but this unwieldy, triple-track approach meant deadlock in one area led to comprehensive failure.” Also, trading on a level that is no longer only domestic or highly regulated did not go over well with domestic companies that focused on profit making. As one can see, the efforts, which were designed around giving underdeveloped and developing countries a shot at being included in international trade were not carried out through implementation.
After reading this article about the Doha Development Agenda and the World Trade Organization (WTO), its my understanding that one of the sole purposes of the Doha agenda was to help the poor countries by giving them a “stake in the global trading system”. Well in the 9th WTO ministerial conference in Bali on 7th of December 2013, a total of 10 decisions were adopted to tackle the issues concerning the least developed countries, including; a trade facilitation agreement, a 4-point decision in agriculture and a 5-point decision in development. These three broad pillars were taken into account, especially the ‘Trade Facilitation Agreement’ which was ratified by the European Union by October 2015 which set a target of “€400 million over five years to assist developing countries in bringing the agreement into effect”. In my opinion it would have been hard to imagine any rich country that would actually contribute financially to the Doha Development agreement because politically, any leader who agrees in giving part of there countries wealth would unlikely be favored for re-election since that donation would have thrown the countries economy out of balance. It is believed that political leaders only truly look at decisions that will get them re-elected for another term, so their decisions must benefit the countries economy as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, there is a discussion on the topic of the Doha Round. It is the current trade-negotiation round of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Its objective is to lower trade barriers around the world, and thus facilitate increased global trade.
ReplyDeleteThe absence of any coverage news media regarding the issue is quite startling.
Progress in arrangements slowed down after the breakdown of the July 2008 transactions over contradictions concerning horticulture, mechanical taxes and non-tax boundaries, administrations, and exchange cures. The most noteworthy contrasts are between created countries drove by the European Union (EU), the United States (USA), and Japan and the significant creating nations drove and spoke to primarily by India, Brazil, China, and South Africa. There is likewise extensive dispute against and between the EU and the USA over their upkeep of farming appropriations—seen to work successfully as exchange boundaries.
The article talks about the Doha development round which is the latest round of trade negotiation round of the world trade organization . it aims to achieve major reform of the international trading system throughout lowering trade barriers and revised trade rules. Political capital was one of the main challenge. It is hard to lower barrios to foreign competition for domestic sell. It is even harder if the workers feel vulnerable of their jobs. The development round provide poor countries a strake to target poverty and prevent for recruiting grounds for terrorism.
ReplyDeleteThe Doha Round, introduced by the World Trade Organization in 2001, is the latest attempt to rebuild and reform the international trading system especially in developing countries. After 14 years of discussions and no achievable outcomes or deadlock, the issues that called for the WTO to begin the Doha Round are still in existence such as the North-South gap, disparities between the rich and the poor, and capitalism.
ReplyDeleteWith all of the challenges that countries face politically, they typically face economically as well, and because of this; countries often have to choose which issue takes precedence. For example, the WTO hoped President Barack Obama would help improve and speed up the global trading system, but in the United States over the past few years, domestic issues were more demanding than foreign ones. Even more recently, we have seen plurilateral deals where countries have been loosening or even removing restrictions on their trade economies.
The red tape and deadlock that have come along after and excessive 14 years of negotiations proves that the more economically liberal countries may need move more right to accomplish anything before another 14 years passes without any reform.
Jack Salisbury - ECO-360 - Js80502n@pace.edu
ReplyDeleteThis post has detailed a few of the variables that have lead to what may be seen as a failure of the Doha Round. While the intentions here were largely good in nature, I believe the political landscape in the U.S and other wealthier nations has left them with little to offer.
Especially in the U.S, trade deals that would help poorer nations increase access to global trade are not even close to the top of the agenda, and could conceivably hurt President Obama politically.(I.E "Fix our own country before helping others" argument"
Coupling this with disputes with the E.U regarding horticulture and farming appropriations makes it seem as though the Doha Round was always destined for failure. As we know, making progress on any issue is almost impossible without it being considered very important politically - As a result when disputes arise in the negotiation to change trade barriers, the wealthier nations wouldn't be naive to happily let these negotiations come to a stand still while creating economic coalitions of their own independent of these talks.
I believe that this proposal shows how deeply rooted capitalism is in international trade. While the idea of Doha seems extremely righteous, no capitalist country on top of the world has shown signs of budging in terms of giving to the needy(poor countries). These poor countries are in a tough situation economically. Countries that are lower on the totem pole are usually down there for a reason. ie. they lack natural resources to trade, their political system is corrupt, and they have unskilled labor. The appeal of Doha is very whole hearted but these countries have little to offer and they must improve within their own countries to be able to appeal to major international traders. I feel like Doha will not work because these countries have little to offer and even if they are propped up by bigger countries, they may not be ready as a country to handle the increased level of trade. They will only be able to join global trade on their own terms, and if not, survival of the fittest can also apply to countries.
ReplyDeleteThe Doha round of trade talks was a very interesting read because the entire concept is more or less dependent on human behavior throughout the entire world.
ReplyDeleteIn fifth grade I was running for class president, along with Dan Kelly and Brian Twohig. Now, we all knew Brian really didn’t have much of a shot at his campaign, so Dan and I decided we’d be better off voting for each other to both look like the ‘better man’. Dan was under the impression I’d vote for him so there really was no harm in voting for myself. I won the election by that single vote and felt some guilt, but I was the new class president.
It is human nature to do what you feel will make you better off. At the age of 10 I knew that I could compromise somebody else to get ahead. Whether we take advantage of knowing this or not is up to us, but we know there are trade offs and the risks we take when making certain deals.
The cool thing about the Doha rounds is that every single country in the agreement must accept it for any of it to hold up. Doha is an ambitious proposal to boost economic growth in developing countries by allowing them to export products they are already good at producing, and accepting services from developed countries in return. This is a real life example of the simple analysis of market specialization we saw in microeconomics. Developing nations, however, have a much stronger incentive to cooperate than developing nations because we have less to gain in the short run.
Developed countries such as the US and Japan are waging in currency battles that ultimately export inflation and currency issues to other counties that are already struggling such as Brazil and India. These countries also have to be accepting of the Doha talks and function as the developed members in the WTO.
It is a shame to see the Doha talks die after 14 years of slow but present progress. The drawn-out talks would have seen great success had the US and European Union nations not found incredible disagreements on agricultural subsidies.
This article raises concerns about the effectiveness of the World Trade Organization. Protesters and activists expressed their frustration since the WTO seemed more directed towards embedding the richness of the wealthy than assisting developing countries. The Doha Development Round, whose objective is to facilitate global trade by lowering trade barriers, clearly displays the issues amongst the WTO.
ReplyDeleteWith the Doha Development Round dying it became clear the unwillingness of rich countries to help the developing nations without something in return. After 14 years of unsuccessful discussions it is almost impossible to see an agreement in which both developed and developing country can find a mutual benefit.
Another startling fact this article raises is how domestic policies influence the bigger picture. For example while the WTO was hoping on president Obama’s support to improve the global trading system, he had more pressing domestic priorities.
It seems evidently clear as to why the Doha has been ineffective. The article discusses multiple reasons for failure, including the allocation of political capital, emergence of plurilateral deals, and over ambitious negotiations. First off, I agree with the article in the assertion that lowering barriers to foreign competition is a hard domestic sell. At the end of the day, the dependence on imports and exports for a countries GDP seem to outweigh the benefits of lowering barriers to poverty stricken countries who cannot contribute the same goods and services as the countries who already frequently trade with one another. It is a sad truth, but it is the world we live in. Also, the blooming of plurilateral deals has further global implications. These deals imply that WTO members have the choice to agree to new rules on a voluntary basis, unlike multilateral agreements. This gives countries who have similar trade interests the opportunity to marginalize certain efforts on their own terms. This type of deal making will almost always leave poverty stricken countries in the dark, simply because it protects self-interest, where as a multilateral deals are designed to party every WTO member regardless of their views on the particular situation. Furthermore, it seems that the Doha almost always attempted to simultaneously create deals in agriculture, services, and manufacturing. As the article states, it was the hopes that by doing so, countries would give ground in some areas in return for concessions elsewhere but it proved that deadlock in one circumstance meant widespread failure. It amazes me that this was the approach that was taken, simply because it is well known that the countries who have little stake in global trade have little to offer. The focus should have been more narrow, perhaps targeting one area in which the country could contribute the most; such as a resource or service.
ReplyDeleteThe Doha issue raises concerns that permeate throughout the entire global economy when it comes to agreeing upon international issues. Similar issues can bee seen in the United Nations, for example (albeit to a somewhat lesser degree than what is seen in the WTO). When it comes to global economics, the first thing any country does before working with another is thoroughly research and consider any proposed deals or agreements to confirm that they are beneficial to them as a country. The hardest part of enacting change or regulations on a global scale is meeting the expectations of every involved country. Such is the case with Doha. Because of the one-country-one-vote nature of the WTO, it is extremely difficult to enact sweeping changes (across industries, no less) when every country has different economic objectives. This is also why, in the year 2015, we STILL have countries like China and Taiwan blatantly exploiting human rights in order to engineer a labor environment that is export-friendly and attracts business away from other more expensive countries. The catch 22 of this article, I believe, is that there is not much that can be done (at least on a global level) in order to change the effectiveness of the WTO. The one-country-one-vote nature of the WTO now is the most pure and equitable form of democracy, and gives each nation an equitable amount of power and rights. At the same time, this same nature prevents much large-scale international actions from coming to fruition.
ReplyDeleteThis article was an interesting and informative read. The Doha Development Round started back in 2001 for the purpose to lower trade barriers around the world which would then increase global trade. It's extremely unfortunate that its 2016 and this negotiation created by the World Trade Organization is dying off. According to the article, 14 years of negotiation have fizzled and no achievements have been made. It raises many concerns and questions of why after so many years of trying, why did Doha fail. The last recorded GDP per capita was in 2014 at 60796.47 US dollars, second highest since 2011. The article states that they were "probably always far too ambitious to try to tie up simultaneous deals across agriculture, manufacturing and services." The potential is there for such a country as Qatar (Doha). It would be a shame to lose noble aspirations.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the Doha Round, as you see in the article no real progress was made, which is a shame as it’s purpose was to better facilitate world trade, but the WTO is still serving it’s purpose, albeit not to the most of it’s abilities.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Doha Round specifically, according to WTO.org, seems like the particular issues they can’t seem to agree over are related specifically to agriculture and non-agriculture market access, but although the Doha’s uses aren’t being met, and no agreements have been made, the talks help stabilize situations, which is useful for keeping people working with one another. However, despite it stabilizing relations, nothing is set in stone, or better said, no one is bound to anything, so when it doesn’t fit the needs of those it may or may not affect, they have no reason or need to follow it, which means its efforts are end game still useless.
However, since the inception of the negotiation of the Doha Round, the WTO has not stopped creating new initiatives. It has what is known as the ‘WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement’, which was agreed upon as of December 2013, also known as the ‘Bali Package’, who’s purpose was to further facilitate smoother, easier trading.
I will say it is sad though, that with the Doha being more focused on helping poorer countries, that the world lost interest in pushing that initiative along, because it implies the same greedy logic that we all know; money talks. Meaning, if the richer of the two parties doesn’t see a big enough advantage, it doesn’t exactly seem attractive to take part in a deal that helps the poorer countries.