Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
What's changed? The rich countries willing to give up anything that will benefit the poor countries? (I'm not holding MY breath...)

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 09:43:48 AM EST
Doha, being dubbed the "Development Round" of negotiations, implied benefits to the poorest countries. However, the non-deliverance of these "benefits" is another reason for its failure (at least in some cases):

Yet, after a decade of damaging results, many people in the 149 WTO signatory nations have made clear their opposition to more of the same. This was before the World Bank dramatically revised downward its projections of Doha Round gains and revealed that a long list of poor countries would be net losers under the likely outcome. While U.S. and European editorials declared the Doha Round collapse as disaster for the poor, social movements and NGOs representing the populations of poor countries cheered.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
by maracatu on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 11:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a vital point. Free trade may stimulate growth (i.e. increase the total take) but the distribution is skewed, there are winners and losers. The winners from the Doha Round would be the Cairns Group countries and "emerging" agri-nations like Brazil, India, Thailand, with little or no guarantee as to the beneficial effect for their own poor by a more egalitarian internal distribution. Next, big agri-business, including grain merchants, and the transport and financial industries associated with them.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 02:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series