The latest round of world trade talks starts today in Doha. The venue was chosen specifically to prevent a repeat of the mass protests which turned the last WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999 into a public relations disaster. The choice made perfect sense. Qatar is not exactly easy for would-be demonstrators to enter and there is no network of local environmental and political campaigners to host and coordinate the peripatetic protesters who, since Seattle, have brought chaos to so many international gatherings.
Suggestions that the conference should relocate elsewhere because of security fears following the Sept. 11 attacks were never convincing. There are undoubtedly people in Qatar who oppose the US bombing in Afghanistan, possibly some even who see Osama Bin Laden as a hero. But they are to be found everywhere, the US included. In any event, the Qatar authorities are more than capable of providing complete protection. As to Wednesday’s incident at a Qatari airbase used by US warplanes, it was clearly not linked to the WTO talks. If the WTO had been the target, the attacker would have hardly been some 40 kilometers from where the delegates were assembling.
It is not from outside that any threat to the Doha talks lies, but from within. The next five days are likely to see bitter infighting between the participants. Every delegation has its own agenda. The US, along with Canada and Australia, want EU countries as well as Japan and others to cut agricultural subsidies so that they can better penetrate those markets. Developing countries want the Americans to stop imposing barriers on their products, which are cheaper because of exchange rates and lower wage costs but which the US keeps out by claiming them to have been manufactured below-production costs. The Europeans want greater controls on genetically modified food and food additives, such as growth hormones — moves that the US resists. The Europeans and the Americans together want global liberalization both in the private services sector — banking, tourism, insurance, travel — and in public services — healthcare and education. Those are just some of the issues, albeit the main areas of debate.
The arguments are going to be long and bitter, all the more so because many of the developing nations feel that the agenda set for Doha is geared largely to suit the interests of the rich West. There is no doubt that the uncontrolled liberalization of private and public services worldwide would be disastrous for poorer nations. Banks like HSBC, hotel chains like Hilton, insurance companies such as the Zurich group, and mega European and American travel companies would be able to enter the local market wherever they want, whenever they want, and without local partners. With their massive resources, they would wipe the board. Local operators would not be able to compete.
Such moves point to poorer nations losing out on the benefits of world trade liberalization. There has to be a greater market share for them — and Doha is the place to agree it. If there is not such an agreement, anger with the WTO is not going to be limited in future to a medley of vociferous private protesters. It is going to be increasingly resented by the world’s developing nations.
