Industrial nations must reflect on what they want of the Doha roundand what they will give, writes Peter Sutherland.
The World Trade Organisation's failed ministerial conference in Cancun was a substantial setback for all those who see the multilateral trading system as one of the principal vehicles for global growth and development. It was not, however, a tragedy. Cool heads, some political vision and responsibility and a little patience could see the experience turned to advantage.
At this point there is no value in finger-pointing - everyone was complicit in the upset. Absolutist positions, political posturing, failure to engage in give-and-take and lack of conviction and confidence all conspired to prevent the breakthrough needed. So, too, did systemic procedural inadequacies.
There is anger and frustration among all those WTO ministers who value the system. Hence the temptation to strike out with threats against nations seen as recalcitrant and to turn away from multilateralism to what may seem easier options. However, bilateralism and regionalism are not worthy alternatives. While there are notable exceptions - such as the EU - such deals are too often opportunistic ventures that distort and divert trade and investment. They are poorly policed by WTO rules - a failing that was supposed to be corrected through the Doha round - and take up sometimes scarce national negotiating capacities. Further, the very countries likely to be excluded from the regional trade game are precisely those that need multilateral support to integrate into the global economy. That said, the Doha round is not going to succeed without some rethinking.
Indeed, many countries need to reflect on what they want of the WTO itself. Much has been done over the past few years to help developing countries implement commitments and have a stronger voice in the institution. Yet many of those nations have stifled their development prospects through protectionism, overly heavy bureaucracies and, too often, corruption.
The WTO is not, after all, an aid agency. It is a set of rules and commitments designed to support governments engaged in economic reform and opening markets - not just other people's markets, but also their own. Recently, acceding countries, notably China, have demonstrated that reality. If governments truly believe that high and unpredictable customs duties, oppressive investment regimes and impenetrable red tape provide the path out of poverty, they are mistaken. At the same time, Cancun was notable for the emergence - perhaps the coming of age - of a particularly powerful group of developing countries. The so-called G22 had at its centre China, Brazil, India and South Africa: perhaps the most vital economies of the coming decades. If it persists, such a group will change the economic balance in the WTO.
Naturally, though, such power brings with it heavy responsibilities towards the system and fellow developing countries.
The industrial nations must adjust to that. Further, they must themselves reflect on what they want of the Doha round and what they are prepared to give.
Agriculture will remain the key to success. More time should provide the opportunity to commit to serious internal farm reform or, in the case of the EU, to examine how to drive recent commitments further towards solutions that will genuinely benefit competitive exporters and subsistence farmers in the developing world. As for the four "Singapore issues", investment, competition policy, trade facilitation and government procurement remain on the table.
If any or all are to go forward, it should only be through serious attention to the institutional, political and financial burdens that new commitments could impose on developing countries.
At the same time, developing countries should tackle these issues constructively. Properly advanced, the issues may provide real advantages for them. Last, both Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, and Pascal Lamy, the EU trade commissioner, expressed frustration with the WTO's negotiating structures. They are probably not alone.
Of course, playing with procedure cannot bridge large differences of substance. Nevertheless, the time has arrived for a serious look at the way the WTO functions. That task is now being dealt with by the consultative board that I chair. Cancun cannot be forgotten or glossed over - but it can be turned into an opportunity.
Peter Sutherland is a former director-general of GATT and the WTO.