The abrupt end of the recent ministerial meeting of the WTO ( now there are 148 members, Cambodia and Nepal being the latest ones to join) at the Mexican seaside resort of Cancun has produced just the opposite effect on everybody concerned, i.e., a great sense of failure and frustration. The representatives of the member states failed to reach an agreement on the future agenda of trade negotiations. The rich countries (the industrialised North), in particular the United States and the EU, hiding behind their very formidable protectionist shield , accused the poor nations (the developing South whose economies are based primarily on agriculture) of ganging up on them. Actually, the delegates from the rich nations, instead of trying to redress the genuine grievances of the poor nations, spent too much time in trying to break the unity of the G-23 -- while Bangladesh did not join this alliance, Brazil, China and India worked together as important members of this group --, which led the block of developing countries. They (the rich nations) were particularly bitter about what they perceived as the poor nations' unwillingness to compromise. They failed to recognise the mounting frustration among the poor countries for unfulfilled promises of the Doha Round's negotiations, which so far, two years after the launch "have been a story of missing deadlines".

The rich nations also failed to appreciate the consequences of globalisation on poorer countries. Despite phenomenal growth in total wealth over the last fifty years, now there are some regions of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia, where the absolute number of people living in poverty has increased. During the last thirty-seven years, the per capita income (after adjustment for inflation) in thirty poorest countries of the world has actually fallen. It should have been evident to them that so far, most of the benefits of the trade rounds, have gone to the industrialised North. In brief, in the words of Amartya Sen, globalisation has, so far, created "massive levels of inequality and poverty". On the other hand, the poor nations, ably assisted by NGOs like Oxfam, felt that the rich nations, instead of addressing the main protectionist issues like agricultural tariffs and farm subsidies, which practically strangle their economies, deliberately derailed the talks by insisting on new subjects like the so-called "Singapore issues" (competition, investment, government procurements and trade facilitation). This policy of deflection, they thought, was a trick to obtain more access to rich country products.

The movement to dismantle the complex structure of trade barriers and to promote free international trade owe their origin to the International Trade Conference held in Geneva in 1947. There, a multilateral treaty called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ( the GATT) was signed by 23 countries. The treaty provided an international forum for member countries to pursue a policy of trade negotiations with a view to minimising new and existing trade barriers. The GATT members agreed to extend the most -favoured-nation treatment status among all members. There have so far been nine rounds (including Doha) of trade negotiations. The eighth round known as the Uruguay Round came to an end in 1994. The World Trade Organisation was established in 1993. It replaced the GATT forum and incorporated all existing GATT treaties. But there was an important difference between the GATT and the WTO -- the WTO was given legal powers to enforce the treaty provisions. Actually in theory, the WTO's goals are even more ambitious than those of the GATT. These are to promote and enforce global free trade including trade in services, intellectual property and investment.

From the very beginning, the negotiations centred on three principal subjects -- gradual elimination of tariffs on high-tech manufactured products from the North to the South, abolition of domestic subsidies to agriculture in the North and gradual elimination of tariffs and other restrictions on textiles and other low-tech manufactured products from the South to the North.

Under the Uruguay Round, the poor countries took significant steps to lower barriers (no doubt, there is still scope for further reductions of tariffs) and opened their markets to manufactured products from the industrial North, which made solemn promises to open its market to exports of products like crops, textiles, clothing, footwear and other basic items in which the poor developing countries have a comparative cost advantage. Under the Doha Round the rich nations made the same promises. Until now, here and there they have made small concessions and given occasional handouts but on the whole they have failed to honour their promises.

Agriculture is most certainly the area where the rich nations have played the most shameful and hypocritical role. They keep preaching to the world that protection is bad for free trade and therefore, for global economic growth. But they practise something quite different. On the one hand, they "impose tariffs on imported farm products that are eight or ten times higher than those levied on industrial products", which effectively rigs the trade game (Donald J. Johnston, Secretary General of the OECD).

And on the other hand, they spend billions of dollars on farm subsidies. Actually this shameful protectionist policy punishes the farmers in poorer countries in more than one way. These very generous subsidies generate vast surpluses which inundate the international markets at prices below the real production cost. This policy which cannot be described by any other name but dumping, literally ruins the possibility of the small farmers from poor countries of ever getting out of poverty. Under the Doha Round both the US and the EU promised to eliminate dumping. But the reality of the situation is completely different. The rich nations have, not only not taken steps to eliminate dumping but also increased farm subsidies to the producers of certain products like, for example, maize corn in the US.

Cotton is another example of unfair trade practices of the richest nation on earth, i.e., the US, which doles out approximately 3 billion dollars in subsidies to its cotton farmers. The surplus generated by this policy is then dumped on the international market which keeps millions of people in West Africa, in a state of perpetual poverty, who according to many experts are the most efficient cotton farmers in the world. At Cancun, the rich nations failed to make any specific commitments to abolish these subsidies. On the contrary, the representatives of the United States rebuffed the demands of the West African countries in a disgraceful manner.

On the issue of reducing the North's high tariffs on low-tech manufactured products from the South, at Cancun, the rich nations made only vague promises. It is difficult to understand how the poor nations can develop their economies if they are not allowed to sell their products in the rich countries because of grotesquely high tariffs and restrictive quotas. For example, tariffs levied on products coming from the EU to the United States are often fifteen times lower than duty paid by similar products coming from Bangladesh or Cambodia. Risking his life and prestige, Pakistan's president General Musharraf gave strategic facilities to the US in its fight against the Taliban government of Afghanistan in the hope that "Washington would grant broad relief from the protectionist American import quotas that stifle Pakistan textile and apparel industry, the country's largest industrial employer and main exporter to the United States." Nothing significant on this count has so far been offered to Pakistan .

So, after the Cancun meltdown the inevitable question that comes to one's mind is: Has the WTO come to an end as a useful forum? I do not think so. The representatives are expected to meet on or before December 15th at the WTO's headquarters in Geneva to formulate an agenda. Instead of relying on aids and occasional handouts, the poor countries, have always placed their faith in global free trade. The rich countries must get off their high horse and practise what they preach -- take concrete measures to promote international free trade. Until now the rich countries have shown callous indifference to the needs of the poor. They must realise that by developing the poor countries where more than two-thirds of world's population live, they will eventually create huge new markets for their sophisticated manufactured products. Although the US and the EU have threatened to concentrate only on bilateral trade negotiations, one hopes that good sense will ultimately prevail. The rich and poor nations must realise that growth in global economy benefits all nations and maximum growth can only be achieved through multilateral negotiations. Although considerable damage has been done to the credibility of the organisation, the WTO continues to be best forum for such negotiations.