BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER

TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (May11/08)
18 May 2011
Third World Network

Members voice concerns on Doha stalemate, urge dialogue
Published in SUNS #7141 dated 3 May 2011

Geneva, 2 May (Kanaga Raja) -- A number of delegations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) have voiced deep concern over the current deadlock in the Doha negotiations, and have amongst others urged members to engage in constructive dialogue to try to break this deadlock, as well as to take collective decisions on the next steps.

These views came in the interventions of various delegations at an informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) on 29 April, at which the Director-General, Mr Pascal Lamy, warned that the Doha negotiations are on "the brink of failure". He proposed that he would undertake a process of consultations on the way ahead for the stalled Doha talks (see SUNS #7140 dated 2 May 2011 for details of the Director-General's statement at the informal TNC meeting.)

According to trade officials, the informal TNC meeting involved a political discussion in which Members expressed their concerns and the need to look at things from a different perspective.

Trade officials said that the membership was in accord over the fact that they cannot continue with "business as usual", meaning that the current approach to try to resolve the outstanding differences needs to be re-examined, and that the ten years of work since the launch of the Doha Round cannot be washed out to sea.

According to trade officials, no decisions were taken on these issues at the informal TNC meeting.

According to trade officials, the meeting also saw the introduction by the European Union of a non-paper on the sectoral negotiations, which members said they will study further.

A number of delegations spoke at the informal TNC meeting following the Director-General's statement, in his capacity as Chair of the TNC.

According to trade officials, Bangladesh, on behalf of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), said that there is need to get through the obstacles. It believed that "we are not at our wits' end." There is a process where the differences can be bridged. It's very important that this phase be overcome. The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) is something that holds benefit for the developing countries. This is the first round in the multilateral trading system that has development at its core and it is an important tool that can offset some of the imbalances in the Uruguay Round.

The "Easter package" reflects the state of play and it remains clear that there are gaps. What is needed is a carefully calibrated work programme where the issues on which there is broad convergence can be consolidated. There is need to see if a way can be found to deliver on what is of importance to the LDCs. There is broad convergence on LDC-specific issues, and with political will, this could be developed into an early harvest and implemented. The UN LDC IV conference (taking place in Istanbul next week) will be an important opportunity to reaffirm the commitment to 880 million people in 48 least developed countries. There is need to reassure them that the multilateral trading system can deliver for the LDCs, said Bangladesh.

Australia, on behalf of the Cairns Group of agricultural exporters, said that the Group has continued to work tirelessly to secure an ambitious and balanced Doha outcome in agriculture, recognizing that development is central to the Round and that reform of the agricultural trading system would deliver significant benefits to low-income farmers in developing and least developed countries.

The Cairns Group agreed with the Director-General's assessment that this current situation is "grave for the Round and for all of the efforts and aspirations it embodies."

"It is particularly unfortunate that in agriculture - one of the central drivers of these negotiations - the Chair's report clearly shows only limited progress has been made over the last two years. We are deeply concerned about the current state-of-play of the Doha Round," said the Group.

It is clear that substantial gaps in positions on key outstanding issues remain and this places real doubts on our ability to conclude the Round this year, said the Group, adding that it is not prepared to accept this scenario lightly - there is simply too much at stake in respect of the multilateral trading system and the importance of trade as an engine for economic growth and development.

"We agree that in the coming weeks, all Members need to think carefully about how we approach this most serious situation to find a way to break-through the deadlock. The Cairns Group will continue to work closely with all Members in our efforts to do so. But one thing is clear and that is a constructive contribution to get the Round done is needed from all Members."

On behalf of itself, Australia said that the documents (of 21 April) tell us that much has been done and that significant gaps remain. There is need to take some time to consider the next steps very carefully. It accepts that members cannot continue with business as usual. "We need to find the best way to conclude the round." The documents now reflect ten years of hard work, and it is prepared to look at all new ideas. The EU proposal is something that it is willing to look at, as well as other new proposals that may come in agriculture and services. The upcoming APEC and OECD ministerial meetings offer an opportunity, it added.

Mauritius, on behalf of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group, said that it is clear that the DDA (Doha Development Agenda) is in a stalemate. "It is a reality that we have to acknowledge, however, frustrating this is, mainly for the small and vulnerable economies of the ACP Group. It is, however, important that the WTO membership does not give in to the easy temptation of starting a negative blame-game instead of reflecting on the implications of this deadlock and how to map out the future. Clearly, we cannot just throw away ten years of protracted negotiations and considerable gains that would have improved the global trading system."

The ACP Group said that in reflecting on the present situation, "let us not forget where we are coming from. The global trading system was and is an imbalanced one which is strongly biassed against developing countries. This is why in 2001, we dubbed this round a Doha Development Round where development outcomes would be the measure of its success and where at long last, we could start correcting some of the glaring imbalances in the system and this after more than seventy years of a tilted multilateral trading history."

According to the ACP Group, its hopes were geared towards certain clear development outcomes, namely: (i) achieving some systemic gains in changing the mercantilist orientation of the system towards a more development friendly one; (ii) achieving some gain in market access for developing countries or at least, for some to preserve existing market access opportunities; (iii) to address the huge distortions in the market mainly in agriculture that developed country subsidies engender; and (iv) to address some of the imbalances in the horizontal rules governing trade which were against development.

Mauritius said that the ACP Group of countries which are small and vulnerable did not have the luxury of a choice in committing to the DDA; it was a compelling one in view of the need for a working and viable rule-based multilateral trading system as a vehicle for their smooth integration into the global economy. This is why the ACP has always engaged constructively in the DDA and this engagement has undeniably contributed in resolving some difficult problems to allow for progress.

"Yet we are faced with a stalemate to-day and ACP will have to pay a high price if the round does not conclude. Let us not fool ourselves, those who will be the most severely affected will be the poorer countries and this will have deep consequences for the global system as a whole. But beyond the economic sequel of a failure for our countries, there will be a resounding interrogation that our leaders will inevitably have to address. After having invested so many years and so much resources in those negotiations, what is the outcome? It is one where the multilateral trading system cannot deliver on its promise of development! And the question arises, why must we have faith in such a system?," said the ACP Group.

To prevent that credibility crisis, the ACP believed that "we are not in a technical dilemma in the negotiations anymore. We are neither in a process dilemma where some tweaking here and there will deliver. We are clearly in a political problem and we should collectively seek to consider ways and means how to face up to the situation. What options are available to us and how to face up to the situation?... We shall need to be creative collectively and chart out a course of action which will have as its horizon the December Ministerial Conference and beyond. In so doing, we need to think on how do we ensure, on the one hand, the perennity of the WTO as an institution whose indispensable role no one can deny and on the other ensure that its normative role does not get frozen!"

The ACP Group also welcomed the EU proposal on NAMA, which it said is a genuine effort to try to focus on real negotiations on a difficult issue with a view to find a way forward. Although the ACP is not a party to sectoral participation, it urged all concerned members to consider this proposal to sort out the present impasse.

In its statement at the TNC meeting, the European Union touched on three issues: (1) the EU's assessment of the state of play in the negotiations, including as regards the documents prepared by the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups; (2) possibilities to unlock the negotiations in NAMA sectorals; and (3) some broader considerations and a brief look ahead.

On the EU's assessment of the state of play in the negotiations, it welcomed the reports and documents that were circulated to the Members on 21 April. "While each report is of course unavoidably overshadowed by the standstill of the negotiations mainly due to what the Director-General describes as a large political gap in market access, on the whole, the documents are very valuable in capturing the work and progress achieved in the course of almost 10 years of negotiations even if in a few cases our proposals have not been adequately reflected. Together, the documents and reports constitute a solid basis for further negotiations."

The EU agreed that Members are well-advised to carefully evaluate the value of what is already on the table and the way that this could be affected by a prolonged stalemate in the NAMA sectoral negotiations.

The EU went on to outline in broad terms its potential compromise scenario for NAMA sectorals. The EU said that the negotiations on NAMA sectorals constitute at this moment, the immediate and next gateway issue. It is clear that without an ambitious result on sectorals - particularly as regards the economically significant sectors of chemicals, machinery and electronics - it will not be possible to conclude the Round in its current form.

"Our view has always been that not all options and avenues in this market access area had been explored. This is why we felt we should formulate ideas to stimulate further engagement," said the EU. It noted that the present patterns of world trade, which have seen profound changes since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, mean that participation of both developed and developing Members is needed for any sectoral to reach the required coverage of world trade.

The EU said that as concerns developing countries that are highly competitive exporters accounting for a large share of world trade, it is only logical and legitimate to expect them to join developed countries in additional liberalisation through NAMA sectorals.

While participation of certain large developing Members is a necessary condition for a sectoral to enter into force, the exact modality of their participation is subject to negotiation, and would not necessarily have to be identical to that applied by developed Members. However, the modality does need to be one that delivers significant and proportionate tariff reductions on top of the results created by the application of the Swiss formula, and efforts proportionate to those of developed Members, the EU added.

The EU said it is convinced that methods and formulae do exist to generate a sectoral package that would deliver significant new market access in both developed and developing countries, while respecting Special and Differential Treatment, which is the guiding principle of the whole Doha Development Agenda. "We are also confident that solutions can be found to ensure that efforts that Members would be asked to do in sectorals are proportionate to the tariff levels that they will have following the application of the Swiss formula." (See SUNS #7140 dated 2 May 2011 for details of the EU non-paper on sectorals.)

Looking ahead, the EU said that political will by both developed and developing members is needed to overcome the current difficulties in the negotiations. "As far as the European Union is concerned, we are not prepared to give up until we have made a serious and concerted effort to negotiate solutions to the issues that currently divide the membership. I do not know if anyone here has received, from capitals, political (i. e. ministerial) level instructions to abandon the market access part of the negotiation. Certainly, this is not the case for the EU."

While the gateway to progress is clearly through the NAMA sectorals, the EU said "we must not set aside or ignore other important areas where a lot of work remains to be done. On the market access side this includes services, where results are clearly disappointing. In addition, solid results in a number of 'rules' type negotiation topics are required to reinforce the WTO as a guarantor of open markets. Also in Agriculture, unfinished business should be concluded."

Brazil, on behalf of the G20, highlighted two elements in the report submitted by the Chair of the negotiating group on agriculture on 21 April. It said that the first and most important element is the preservation of document TN/AG/W/4/Rev. 4 in its integrity. The December 2008 text remains the basis for any future agreement and is the expression of years of negotiations and trade-offs. The Chair has properly preserved that negotiating history, which contains a significant number of contributions, in terms of both structure and landing zones, developed by the G20 since its inception seven years ago.

The second element, said the G20, is that the Chair's report (TN/AG/26) is objective and follows a consensus-based, bottom-up, no-surprises approach. The G20 took note of the Chair's assessments and comments in his report. Those views will certainly be tested in any effort to advance negotiations under the different negotiating pillars of the December 2008 draft modalities.

The G20 concurred with the assessment of the Director-General that the Doha Round faces a critical situation. The G20 believed that WTO Members "must promptly engage in discussions to consider courses of action that could respond to the challenges we face in ways that are supportive of the multilateral trading system". The G20 said that it will continue to pursue the objective of achieving an ambitious and balanced outcome in agriculture that delivers on the development objectives of the Round in accordance with the mandate.

On behalf of itself, Brazil (represented by Ambassador Roberto Azevedo) said that "in examining the voluminous set of documents delivered to us, it becomes obvious how much we have advanced in translating into technical concepts, structure, and legal language the Doha Ministerial Declaration, the July 2004 Framework, and the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. The reports done by you (Director-General) and the Chairs are the basis for the resumption of work on any of the pillars of the single undertaking, whenever, wherever and in whatever format it happens. They consolidate a decade or more of hard work and the bargains made in that period. This must be treasured and preserved by us all."

"Like others, we are deeply disappointed that we have, so far, not been able to deliver the promises of the Development Round. Brazil shares the view prevailing across the membership that we should not leave any stone unturned to find a way that takes us to an ambitious, balanced and fair conclusion of the Round," said Ambassador Azevedo.

Brazil shared the assessment of the Director-General, that the conclusion of the Round would represent a very significant triple-win in terms of economic results, strengthening of the system and developmental benefits. "Not being able to place development at the heart of the multilateral rules-based trading system would represent a blow to the overwhelming majority of the Members of this Organization, especially to the most vulnerable amongst us."

"Political and technical efforts continue to be deployed in order to address the identified negotiating gaps and to find solutions. We welcome all steps taken in that direction, we support them, and we wish them to bear fruit. Nevertheless, we share your (Director-General's) assessment that gaps, at least today, seem to be unbridgeable. We must keep seeking solutions, but we must also face the fact that, right now, the chances of success for gap-closing efforts in market access are disappointingly low. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and keep working in the same mode we were before. At a minimum, we must talk to each other - in confidence when necessary - but always honestly, candidly, openly, sometimes even bluntly, about how to deal with the situation you (Director-General) described in your report," said the Brazilian envoy.

"This conversation must not prejudge what we do with the Doha single undertaking. This is precisely one of its key components," he said. He added that Brazil is quite open-minded in its approach for the future, observing just a few basic concepts.

First, Brazil would not favour scenarios that are close to "business as usual". Second, Brazil would strongly oppose any scenario resembling what the Director-General described in his report as a "stop and reboot" approach. A supposed "fresh start", without previous substantial further convergence in terms of expectations for the market access negotiations, "would simply bring us back to the very same spot where we are now". Third, Brazil will always prefer scenarios that favour the development dimension of the Doha mandate. "Development" for Brazil is not a temporary or circumstantial objective, linked to the DDA only. It must be the cornerstone of any work done in this Organisation. Finally, Brazil also rejects the notion that this Organisation's credibility and legitimacy are in a death embrace with the Round.

"We are under a duty to ensure that our future work is also directed to the strengthening and re-vitalisation of the WTO, which is bigger than the Round and transcends it," said Ambassador Azevedo.

Kenya, on behalf of the African Group, said that it supported the statements made by Bangladesh on behalf of the LDCs and Mauritius on behalf of the ACP. It is the group's considered view that the situation is graver than it might look. At this critical juncture, it is obvious that the dilemma is not only about discarding ten years of multilateral work, but rather questioning the role of the WTO. In 2001, the developing countries were reluctant to launch a new Round, as they were still grappling and digesting the Uruguay Round outcome and its implementation challenges. However, the Doha Development Agenda was launched ostensibly to address their development concerns. Lamentably and since then the focus of the negotiations has gradually shifted from development to market access.

The African Group said it believes in the multilateral trading system and "expects the global benefits to accrue to all of us, especially the poorest." But today, the multilateral trading system appears to be stalling. "After all the intensive efforts and attendant costs born throughout the years, there is need to change our style of doing business to save the situation."

The Group posed the following question: "Is it expected that after ten years of tireless efforts, developing countries will be invited to join another round of trade negotiations if this one fails? Unfortunately the answer to this question is not an easy one. "We wonder if the Doha Development Agenda is not concluded this year, what consequences it would have on future attempts to negotiate. Definitely the differences that are not bridgeable at this stage shall be weighed against the role of the WTO as a negotiating body and we therefore urge all Members to be realistic and to re-think about the global costs that are inherent in the failure of the system."

The Group was extremely concerned at the willingness of some members to hold up an important trade-based development and growth package; without attempting to make any contribution to the positive acquis of the Round to date in favour of LDCs, SVEs (Small Vulnerable Economies) and other disadvantaged economies. "Although we believe in the Single Undertaking, we are also keenly aware that the speed at which the various elements of the Round have moved has been unequal. Here we would like to register our concern at the slow speed with which our concerns have been addressed, and the lack of engagement by our partners therein."

While welcoming what it called the new proposals to break the impasse, the Group said: "We should however also bear in mind that there are also older proposals touching on development submitted earlier and still lying on the table un-discussed. We ask that due recognition be given to such proposals. Furthermore, all our past submitted proposals remain on the table and must be discussed together with the new proposals."

[It was not clear from the text of Kenya's written statement made available to the media, what it meant by the "new proposals". However, in individual briefings to some of the newsmen after the release of the Chairs' reports on 21 April, Mr. Lamy is known to have mentioned the difficulties in reaching an accord due to the Hong Kong declaration's stipulation about equivalence of Agriculture and NAMA ambitions, and talked about hiving off the trade facilitation accord and rules on fisheries subsidies, without making clear whether it was to reach an early harvest on these, while putting aside other parts of the Doha work programme, or abandoning the other parts.]

The African Group stressed once again that for Africa, development outcomes in each of the negotiating areas remain the main priority of the Round and Africa will join the consensus only if the Round delivers on concrete development deliverables. "We, therefore, call on all partners to rethink their strategies at this important moment for the common good of the round."

The United States (represented by Ambassador Michael Punke) said that the Chairs of all negotiating groups showed good judgment in the various types of documents that they used to capture the state of play and taken together, these documents provide a good overall sense of where things stand. "We are pleased that, by and large, Chairs remained true to the bottom-up approach to the negotiations that Members advocated. At the same time, the report format gave the Chairs an opportunity to offer some of their own important insights."

"We agree with the conclusion of Director General Lamy s report that there is a fundamental gap in expectations among key Members, but this fundamental gap is not, in our view, limited to NAMA. We do not agree with the suggestion in the report that if we could work out our differences in NAMA, then other areas of the negotiations would simply fall into place. As we pointed out at the last TNC meeting, fundamental differences also exist with respect to agriculture and services," said Ambassador Punke.

The Director General's report suggests that the issues that divide us on NAMA are political, not technical or procedural. "We agree with this assessment, but we also believe the same is true of agriculture and services. Beyond market access issues, the Chairs' documents also provide a fairly clear picture of the broader situation in our Doha negotiations, and that picture is mixed."

For instance, said the US, "there has been noteworthy progress on Trade Facilitation and our negotiators deserve a lot of credit for the hard work that has gone into this effort. At the same time, the 850 remaining brackets make clear that much hard work remains. It is also useful that we now have texts in negotiating groups where we did not have them before. But these texts are tools - a snapshot - not end-results. The texts all show major substantive differences among Members." The documents also show that in some cases - little, if any, progress has been made, said the US, pointing as an example the Rules Chair's report on fisheries subsidies negotiations.

"The United States has not given up on Doha, but we believe the negotiations, and the WTO more broadly, cannot avoid hard truths. One truth is that there is no clear path for closing the stark gaps among the key players... Unfortunately, our shared effort has not produced meaningful results. Instead, this process has only confirmed how far apart we find ourselves, especially on the vital market access elements of the Round. In a sense, of course, the un-bridged gaps on market access - and here again, I refer to services and agriculture, as well as NAMA - should not come as a surprise," said the US envoy.

But this negotiation will set the terms of trade for decades to come and an agreement that does not reflect 21st century realities will contribute neither to the strength of the global trading system nor to the long-term viability of this institution. "Despite the difficulties, the United States will not throw in the towel. As long as there are willing partners, we are willing to work together to find solutions," said Ambassador Punke.

According to trade officials, Burkina Faso, on behalf of the Cotton-4 (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali), said that the Doha mandate and the July 2004 agreements with regards to cotton must be respected. It said that there is need for answers as soon as possible. "We cannot afford to throw this away. If we are to go to Plan B, C or D, we must take into account the development dimension and the question of cotton subsidies."

China said that firstly, according to its preliminary analysis, these reports (of the Director-General and Chairs of the negotiating groups) have basically captured the progress, or the status-quo, in all negotiation areas. "Therefore, we tend to be positive towards these documents. But, since they are only reports, instead of modality texts as planned, they should be regarded as a build-on, instead of a replacement, of the 2008 texts, which most Members believe still remain the basis of our negotiations." Secondly, on its assessment of the current situation, China said: "It's obvious that we are behind our schedule in coming up with texts, which poses a big question mark to our original plan of concluding the round within this year as instructed by our leaders. Like others, we are very disappointed at this situation, as Members have made tremendous efforts over the past ten years."

China pointed out that the biggest problem now is that the negotiations seem to be deviating from the development mandate. "For instance, Mr. Chairman, you indicated clearly in your report that the NAMA sectoral is the gateway issue that is impeding progress of the whole negotiations. What was not said is the fact that the sectors of chemicals, electrical and electronics, and industrial machinery represent only the export interests of the developed Members. We are very much concerned that the development objective and mandate may have been marginalised."

Noting that the Director-General was right that "business as usual" will not work and that "stop and reboot" will not work, either, China also referred to the WTO head having pointed out in his report that, "the issues to be addressed in any new Round would necessarily bring us back to the issue which is blocking progress today."

"Should we go down that path, it would simply mean a waste of another 10 years," said China, adding, "We need to make collective decisions on the next steps. The priority should be to preserve the multilateral trading system and the development mandate."

"We should also consider delivering some issues that are closely related to development. Some Members have been talking about 'early agreement and implementation' for quite some time, especially on issues of interest to the LDCs. We believe that this is a fair and reasonable appeal as presented just now by Bangladesh, which we support," China concluded.

According to trade officials, Jamaica said that "we are in a dire political situation". Abandonment of the round, or stop-start approach are not acceptable. The work that has been done is valuable if incomplete and progress must be made to build on what has been done. These are dire circumstances and they require a constructive dialogue to break the deadlock.

India (represented by Ambassador Jayant Dasgupta) said that the documents of 21 April provide a snapshot of the progress achieved in the negotiations and also point to the wide gaps still existing not only in NAMA Sectorals but in many other areas of the negotiations. Notwithstanding these differences and gaps, these documents have helped preserve the progress made in the negotiations since 2001, as had been captured in the December 2008 texts. India fully shared the views expressed by other delegations about the critical stage reached in the negotiations. India, one of the founder members of the GATT and of the WTO, is deeply concerned about the impasse in the negotiations and its adverse implications for global trade in general and for developing countries in particular.

India said it stands fully committed to bringing the Round to a successful conclusion and in this context, referred to the relevant part of the Hainan Declaration of 13 April 2011 of the leaders of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries that said: "Brazil, China, India and South Africa remain committed and call upon other members to support a strong, open, rule-based multilateral trading system embodied in the World Trade Organisation and a successful, comprehensive and balanced conclusion of the Doha Development Round, built on the progress already made and consistent with its development mandate."

"While all of us strive in the weeks and months ahead to resolve the deadlock on NAMA Sectorals and the other outstanding issues, we need to constantly remind ourselves that this Round is the only Round in the last seven decades that has been specially designated as a Development Round with the professed aim to bring the benefits of globalisation and international trade within reach of the developing countries so that they can successfully tackle the challenges of poverty, unemployment and growth. In this regard, we do feel very disappointed when we note the attempt to shift the discourse from development to purely mercantilist issues, most of them having scant relevance for developing countries."

India said it fully shared the Director-General's views that allowing a gradual drift in the process or renegotiating the mandate at this late stage or continuing with business as usual are not feasible options to bring the Round to a successful conclusion by end 2011. "We must, therefore, collectively think of all options and alternative paths to reach our objective of concluding the Round- whether at one go or in a phased manner." It noted that members all need to be mindful of the twin deadlines that they have set for themselves, of July 2011 for the conclusion of the text-based negotiations and of mid-December 2011, when they have scheduled their next Ministerial meeting.

India also drew the attention of the membership to the fact that the WTO is not only about the Doha Round of negotiations. It encompasses much more besides, including carrying on with the work in the Committees to make the global trading system more open, transparent, predictable and development friendly.

"In this context, I would like to mention the many outstanding implementation issues of the Uruguay Round which represent unfinished business, and which were very much alive till the Cancun Ministerial meeting but are under threat of falling through the cracks unless they are given due attention. I hope that these issues receive the attention that they so richly deserve, because that would provide a re-affirmation of the commitment of the whole membership to the development mandate of the Doha Round," said Ambassador Dasgupta.

Indonesia, on behalf of the G33, said that G33 members are of the view that the Agriculture Chair's Report in TN/AG/26 dated 21 April 2011 broadly captures the state of play of the Agriculture Negotiations. The report also does not depart from the expectation of all members that any revision of the document TN/AG/W/4/Rev. 4 must be based on a bottom-up, member-driven process. The report also contains the Chair's assessment of various issues in the draft modalities text. The future work should also involve discussion of this assessment.

That said, however, the G33 said it is deeply concerned at the lack of progress in the Doha negotiations despite the collective agreement of WTO members to conclude the Round this year. Substantial divergences have emerged over key outstanding issues and the window of opportunity is narrowing fast but is not yet completely closed. The G33 therefore urged all members to engage immediately to find creative solutions. The G33 members attached very high importance to the conclusion of the Round with development as its core.

 "We believe that failure to conclude the Round will be very costly and detrimental not only to the development interests of most of the member countries, but also to the credibility of the multilateral trading system as a whole," the G33 added. +

 


BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER