Consequently, it was most encouraging to find out a few days ago that leading trade ministers had agreed in Davos, Switzerland on the need to restart stalled global trade talks. This has sparked optimism that a breakthrough might be eventually found after five years of relative fruitless negotiations.

Held on the sideline of the annual World Economic Forum, the discussion between the trade leadership agreed that there was more on the table than before the breakdown of last year. The Brazilian trade representative, foreign Minister Celso Amorim, a powerful figure in the G 20 Group of developing countries (formed in 2003) agreed with Pascal Lamy, the Director General of WTO, that a new global accord was vital for the developing world.

This hopeful note will assist stakeholders in trying to find a meaningful compromise and flexibility on several remaining issues. They include a new US offer on agricultural subsidies, more innovation from the EU with regard to agricultural tariffs and a better offer from India and Brazil on industrial goods and services. These factors have assumed special importance given the lack of compromise between the US and the EU on the size of cuts to subsidies and tariffs protecting their farm industries and the absence of an acceptable common ground between rich and poor countries over access in trade in industrial goods and services.

The evolving scenario has become significant given the crunch deadline in the United States in June, when the 'fast-track' negotiating powers of US President George W. Bush expires. There has been a shift in that country with regard to ground political reality. The new Democrat dominated Congress might not renew the special powers. In that case, any deal struck by negotiators runs the real risk of being picked apart by US lawmakers. US Trade Representative Susan Schwab has been particularly stressing on this for the last month.

Nevertheless, whatever be the dynamics over the next few weeks, it is clear that the Doha Round is not dead. The WTO is a 'member-driven' organisation that is again trying to stand on its feet after months of indecision and chaos. There is also realisation among the main actors that all trade negotiations were a mixture of 'politics, economics and tactics'. They also understand that unless and until there is redistribution of the 'huge gains' created by globalisation and trade liberalisation, there will be a problem with public opinion and trade. This time round after Davos, it is also being spelt out that there has to be 'a sense of engagement at the top level' and this 'must percolate down' to those conducting the detailed negotiations.

Fortunately, for developing countries, a view is finally gaining ground that there will be economic, systemic and political costs of failure. It is slowly being understood that an acceptable and agreed multilateral trade system will be the best insurance against protectionism. Mr. Lamy, an astute politician, has also underlined the geopolitical consequences of failure. He has correctly sated that 'we live in a world which is potentially extremely unstable.' He has also highlighted that developing countries including Bangladesh have invested a lot in the process and believe that the WTO will enable them to reap of the benefits of globalisation. In that context he has suitably warned that if the process were to fail, then, the developed world, instead of playing their role in injecting more stability, would probably be doing the reverse. Such a state of affairs for obvious reasons would not be desirable for any country. It could also undermine regional stability in sensitive areas.

We all need to understand that the current stalemate is not as bad as it looks. In fact, I believe that it is not as bad as the impasse in the Uruguay Round in 1990 that delayed completion of those talks for more than two years. Contrary to the Uruguay Round, the Doha Round has already cleared a lot of conceptual and technical underbrush. What remains are tough political decisions, but even that is negotiable given the correct spirit.

The participants in the Doha Round negotiations have to appreciate that continued delay could only complicate the situation even further. A protracted timetable will see a US Farm Bill and a new EU Common Agricultural Policy. If that happens, common sense dictates that all bets will be of.

Longer delay might also mean that the benefits of any new trade liberalisation will not start being realised until some time in the middle of the next decade at the earliest. That unfortunately might make outcome of such multilateral trade talks increasingly irrelevant. This would be so because world business tend to operate on the basis of 18-month product cycles.

Persistent postponement might also generate the likelihood of some manufacturing interest -- such as the chemical industry -- demanding that they should be detached from the Doha negotiations. They will want it so that they can have separate and immediate deals towards elimination of tariffs in their sector products. Such narrow-deals would then drain of business-community support for a broader multilateral agreement because politically influential industries would have already gotten what they want.

Lack of quick progress could also weaken the constraints that multilateral rules place on countries' behaviour. This will be particularly applicable in a trading world where China is emerging as an economic colossus, not always disinterested in obtaining bilateral and regional trade deals. This is pertinent because the signing of more bilateral agreements will make it harder to finish the Doha talks.

The political leadership must now come forward and make the necessary sacrifices. They have to do this so that fresh windows of opportunity can be opened for marketing services like telecommunications and insurance. A suitable agreement would also channel billions of dollars in trade-related aid for poor countries to help them build the necessary infrastructure to boost exports.

Bangladesh needs to monitor development with great care. We should also re-activate most urgently discussions within the LDC group of countries. This will be required to identify better least common denominators that could better serve our interests as a whole, and individually.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador who can be reached at mzamir@dhaka.net