Rich and poor divide as world trade talks fail
“It’s over,” said George Odour Ong’wen, a Kenyan delegate. “The differences were very wide, and it was impossible to close the gap.”
Developing nations, which had banded together to play a key role in negotiations, wanted to end rich countries’ agricultural subsidies. European nations and Japan were intent on pushing four new issues that many poor countries saw as a distraction. In the end, it was the diverging agendas of 146 member countries that split delegates beyond repair.
Before the talks collapsed, delegates spent yesterday debating, not the key changes to farming policy that they have spent much of the conference negotiating, but four proposals about foreign investment and competition.
Delegates said the Europeans agreed to back off on three of the proposals, but insisted they be granted one. That was unacceptable to many developing nations.
Many poor nations were frustrated that officials delayed discussion of agricultural reform. Delegates had hoped to slash subsidies rich nations pay farmers, making it easier for their farmers to compete in a global economy. They also wanted to lower tariffs many countries charge for importing farm goods. Doing so could have dramatically altered farming around the world. Some farmers could have found new markets for their crops. Others would have struggled to compete without the subsidies that keep them in business.
Christian Aid Ireland’s policy officer in Cancun Óisín Coghlan said: “The developing countries have drawn a line in the sand. They’ve shown that they’ll no longer be bullied into agreements that damage their chances of development. Rich countries wanted something for nothing. They hoped that they could both get Singapore issues and offer no concessions on the key issues for development and they’ve found that this is no longer possible. We hope that they will go back to Brussels and Washington and work out what the development round really means.”
Conall O’Caoimh, policy officer with Comhlamh, was more circumspect. “. . . if the talks break down, it will leave the poor countries even more vulnerable to the powerful. The rich countries will cherry-pick the few they want to do business with, and the rest will be left without markets and subject to even lower prices than at present.”
