Sunset in Cancun

Washington Post: "Bold reform on the global level has now been delayed." That was how a senior U.S. trade official bluntly described the consequences of the collapse of the Cancun trade talks last weekend. It may well be an understatement. Although negotiations will continue, no one expects the World Trade Organization's Doha round of trade negotiations to be completed on schedule, by the end of next year. At the moment all participants are indulging in an orgy of finger-pointing and name-calling. In truth, everyone involved bears a part of the responsibility for the collapse of the talks -- rich countries, poor countries and middle-income countries alike.
At its heart the dispute was over whether poor countries are willing to make a tradeoff: In exchange for a reduction of rich-country agricultural subsidies, they were asked to make concessions on a group of legal issues of concern to foreign investors. Some refused even to negotiate this point -- at least in part, some observers claim, under the influence of the nongovernmental anti-trade groups that were out in force in Cancun, Mexico. In the wake of the collapse of talks, some trade activists were even photographed celebrating this so-called victory over the developing world. This was shortsighted, not to say grossly irresponsible: Trade is not a zero-sum game but rather a way of facilitating growth across the board. As the economic history of the past half-century has proven, countries with more open borders become richer faster: Refusal to cooperate hurts no one more than the poor themselves.
The rich world, including the United States, Europe and Japan, should be faulted for not offering a more generous agricultural deal at an earlier date. And middle-income countries such as Brazil, India and China played a pernicious role by joining much poorer countries in a bloc, claiming to share their interests and inveighing against a deal.