Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO06057 | Time for a ‘Plan B’ for the WTO? Or How to Rescue the Doha Round
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO06057 | Time for a ‘Plan B’ for the WTO? Or How to Rescue the Doha Round
    Barry Desker

    22 June 2006

    download pdf

    Commentary

    ON 30 May, Pascal Lamy, director-general of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), set a deadline of 30 June 2006 for a long-delayed deal that would conclude the Doha round of global trade negotiations. This means members of the WTO would have to reach a broad- based agreement to cut farm subsidies and tariffs on agricultural and industrial goods before United States trade negotiating authority expired in mid-2007. The deadlock in global trade talks has been accompanied by a frenzied pace of negotiations for bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs), which proponents claim serve as building blocks for overarching multilateral deals. But there is a risk today that bilateralism and regionalism are becoming a stumbling block for the WTO.

    While FTAs liberalize trade among its member countries, such agreements may also increase incentives to raise protectionist trade barriers against non-members. The sluggish pace of WTO negotiations has hastened the trend towards FTAs as countries choose a second best option. The pressing need today is for new momentum in the Doha negotiations. Because of the negative role of the European Union (EU) in the current negotiations, the US and China should lead a new initiative for across-the-board trade liberalization.

    Hopes for a successful conclusion to the Doha Round were raised when the US presented a proposal last October to cut farm tariffs substantially and to abolish export subsidies over five years. The EU responded with a less ambitious offer but even this aroused the ire of the farm lobby in Europe. French (and EU) foot-dragging on agriculture has become a staple of multilateral trade negotiations. In practice, the EU fronts an even more intractable opposition to agricultural trade liberalization by the cosseted farmers of Japan and South Korea.

    Developing World resistance

    The developing countries are not making life any easier in the Doha Round negotiations. The largest gains in real income would result from eliminating current distortions in the agricultural policies of developing countries. But even as the Group of 20 comprising larger developing countries such as Brazil, India and South Africa sought deep cuts in the agricultural subsidies of the US, EU and other rich countries, they offered only modest tariff reductions.

    Attention is also increasingly drawn to the negative impact on some poorer states. African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that enjoy privileged access to the EU for their exports, particularly of bananas and sugar, find themselves facing an onslaught of global competition. Least-developed countries, which currently enjoy tariff-free access to developed-country markets, will face competition from more competitive economies.

    This raises the more problematic issue of the uneven effects of global trade liberalization. In textiles and garments, Bangladesh and Cambodia will be shunted aside by China and India. With little to gain from more liberalized trade, the least-developed countries could be a stumbling block to an agreement unless they are bought off by promises of greater aid to build their trade-related capacity in administration, infrastructure and trade facilitation.

    Two solutions to the Doha impasse

    Trading economies need to consider what could be done to maintain the impetus for trade liberalization. There are two possible solutions:

    First, a two-tier WTO system in which the new rules as well as the rights and benefits would apply only to those states that participated in those negotiations. This took place during the Tokyo Round negotiations in the 1970s, which resulted in the adoption of several plurilateral GATT agreements. There could be an opt-in/opt-out approach. WTO member countries that do not wish to participate in the negotiations or sign on to any results reached would not be obliged to do so.

    A more far-reaching alternative approach would be a push for greater liberalization by key countries with an interest in maintaining the momentum of multilateral trade negotiations. The US and China should take the lead in proposing a multilateral free trade agreement under GATT Article XXIV among countries and customs territories interested in opening markets across the board. If the two giants could do so, they would help re-shape the substance and atmospherics of international trade negotiations, shifting the focus away from FTAs.

    Politically, this could be the imaginative approach necessary to create a new foreign policy opening between the current global hegemon, the US, and the world’s rising power, China. Such an alignment would assist in ensuring the peaceful development of China. Traditionally, the rise of great powers resulted in the emergence of new great power conflicts if they did not have binding interests. With the end of the Cold War following the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are now analysts in the US and China who are focusing on the coming conflict between the two powers. However, if a new concert of interests can be created between the Washington and Beijing, it is possible that China’s emergence, like that of the US at the end of the 19th century when Britain was the global hegemon, could take place within the framework of a rule-based international system that can accommodate the emergence of new global powers with shared interests in global peace and stability.

    Challenge for the EU

    This would pose a challenge to the EU. European governments would have to decide whether they wished to support French-led opposition to further liberalization, especially of agricultural trade, or whether they would be willing to bear some costs to ensure that the wider global benefits could be attained. It could lead the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries to push for the EU to join this global move to prevent the marginalisation of Europe.

    If such a development occurred, it would be reminder of the critical impact of the decision by President Clinton to convene a “leaders’ meeting” in Seattle in November 1993 of the countries participating in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum to break the stalemate in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations caused by EU opposition to agricultural liberalization.

    Within the EU, there was grave concern that the US intended to form a new preferential trade grouping that would exclude the Europeans. After urgent consultations between French President Francois Mitterand and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the EU agreed to the inclusion of agriculture, leading to the conclusion of the Uruguay Round negotiations in December 1993. For the East Asian economies in APEC, this was the first recognition that they could benefit from the regionalism card in multilateral economic diplomacy. APEC also provided a learning experience, as the agreement for sectoral liberalization in APEC was the model for sectoral liberalization in the WTO.

    East Asian support for this initiative provided the critical mass in the WTO. This also provides a cue for the future. A European willingness to concede on agriculture is only likely if it can be framed in the context of wider interests. If the US and China seek an early and successful conclusion to the Doha Round negotiations, they should be prepared to propose a Plan B — a multilateral free trade agreement among countries interested in across-the-board trade liberalization. An initiative in APEC would be a first step.

    About the Author

    Barry Desker is Director of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University. He was previously Chief Executive Officer of the Trade Development Board and represented Singapore in WTO negotiations.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / International Political Economy / Global

    Commentary

    ON 30 May, Pascal Lamy, director-general of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), set a deadline of 30 June 2006 for a long-delayed deal that would conclude the Doha round of global trade negotiations. This means members of the WTO would have to reach a broad- based agreement to cut farm subsidies and tariffs on agricultural and industrial goods before United States trade negotiating authority expired in mid-2007. The deadlock in global trade talks has been accompanied by a frenzied pace of negotiations for bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs), which proponents claim serve as building blocks for overarching multilateral deals. But there is a risk today that bilateralism and regionalism are becoming a stumbling block for the WTO.

    While FTAs liberalize trade among its member countries, such agreements may also increase incentives to raise protectionist trade barriers against non-members. The sluggish pace of WTO negotiations has hastened the trend towards FTAs as countries choose a second best option. The pressing need today is for new momentum in the Doha negotiations. Because of the negative role of the European Union (EU) in the current negotiations, the US and China should lead a new initiative for across-the-board trade liberalization.

    Hopes for a successful conclusion to the Doha Round were raised when the US presented a proposal last October to cut farm tariffs substantially and to abolish export subsidies over five years. The EU responded with a less ambitious offer but even this aroused the ire of the farm lobby in Europe. French (and EU) foot-dragging on agriculture has become a staple of multilateral trade negotiations. In practice, the EU fronts an even more intractable opposition to agricultural trade liberalization by the cosseted farmers of Japan and South Korea.

    Developing World resistance

    The developing countries are not making life any easier in the Doha Round negotiations. The largest gains in real income would result from eliminating current distortions in the agricultural policies of developing countries. But even as the Group of 20 comprising larger developing countries such as Brazil, India and South Africa sought deep cuts in the agricultural subsidies of the US, EU and other rich countries, they offered only modest tariff reductions.

    Attention is also increasingly drawn to the negative impact on some poorer states. African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that enjoy privileged access to the EU for their exports, particularly of bananas and sugar, find themselves facing an onslaught of global competition. Least-developed countries, which currently enjoy tariff-free access to developed-country markets, will face competition from more competitive economies.

    This raises the more problematic issue of the uneven effects of global trade liberalization. In textiles and garments, Bangladesh and Cambodia will be shunted aside by China and India. With little to gain from more liberalized trade, the least-developed countries could be a stumbling block to an agreement unless they are bought off by promises of greater aid to build their trade-related capacity in administration, infrastructure and trade facilitation.

    Two solutions to the Doha impasse

    Trading economies need to consider what could be done to maintain the impetus for trade liberalization. There are two possible solutions:

    First, a two-tier WTO system in which the new rules as well as the rights and benefits would apply only to those states that participated in those negotiations. This took place during the Tokyo Round negotiations in the 1970s, which resulted in the adoption of several plurilateral GATT agreements. There could be an opt-in/opt-out approach. WTO member countries that do not wish to participate in the negotiations or sign on to any results reached would not be obliged to do so.

    A more far-reaching alternative approach would be a push for greater liberalization by key countries with an interest in maintaining the momentum of multilateral trade negotiations. The US and China should take the lead in proposing a multilateral free trade agreement under GATT Article XXIV among countries and customs territories interested in opening markets across the board. If the two giants could do so, they would help re-shape the substance and atmospherics of international trade negotiations, shifting the focus away from FTAs.

    Politically, this could be the imaginative approach necessary to create a new foreign policy opening between the current global hegemon, the US, and the world’s rising power, China. Such an alignment would assist in ensuring the peaceful development of China. Traditionally, the rise of great powers resulted in the emergence of new great power conflicts if they did not have binding interests. With the end of the Cold War following the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are now analysts in the US and China who are focusing on the coming conflict between the two powers. However, if a new concert of interests can be created between the Washington and Beijing, it is possible that China’s emergence, like that of the US at the end of the 19th century when Britain was the global hegemon, could take place within the framework of a rule-based international system that can accommodate the emergence of new global powers with shared interests in global peace and stability.

    Challenge for the EU

    This would pose a challenge to the EU. European governments would have to decide whether they wished to support French-led opposition to further liberalization, especially of agricultural trade, or whether they would be willing to bear some costs to ensure that the wider global benefits could be attained. It could lead the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries to push for the EU to join this global move to prevent the marginalisation of Europe.

    If such a development occurred, it would be reminder of the critical impact of the decision by President Clinton to convene a “leaders’ meeting” in Seattle in November 1993 of the countries participating in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum to break the stalemate in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations caused by EU opposition to agricultural liberalization.

    Within the EU, there was grave concern that the US intended to form a new preferential trade grouping that would exclude the Europeans. After urgent consultations between French President Francois Mitterand and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the EU agreed to the inclusion of agriculture, leading to the conclusion of the Uruguay Round negotiations in December 1993. For the East Asian economies in APEC, this was the first recognition that they could benefit from the regionalism card in multilateral economic diplomacy. APEC also provided a learning experience, as the agreement for sectoral liberalization in APEC was the model for sectoral liberalization in the WTO.

    East Asian support for this initiative provided the critical mass in the WTO. This also provides a cue for the future. A European willingness to concede on agriculture is only likely if it can be framed in the context of wider interests. If the US and China seek an early and successful conclusion to the Doha Round negotiations, they should be prepared to propose a Plan B — a multilateral free trade agreement among countries interested in across-the-board trade liberalization. An initiative in APEC would be a first step.

    About the Author

    Barry Desker is Director of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University. He was previously Chief Executive Officer of the Trade Development Board and represented Singapore in WTO negotiations.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / International Political Economy

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info