International Information Programs
Office of Research Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction

September 29, 2003

September 29, 2003



**  Cancun failed due to the "intransigence" of both rich and poor, but U.S., EU mainly to blame.


**  Papers in the developing world and European left rooted for the G-22's "formidable alliance"; some conservative voices saw "no reason to rejoice" since the poor have the most to lose.


** The U.S. will be tempted to use the "debacle" to "speed up" its own bilateral trade deals.


** Few expect anything positive to follow the "disaster;" the next Geneva talks will be decisive. 


'Arrogance and irrationality' caused defeat--  Most writers judged the wealthy countries as the primary culprits in the Cancun breakdown, yet a number also found that both rich and poor were guilty of "brinkmanship."  Editorials from developing nations, Canada and the European left accused the "powerful nations" of "hypocrisy" for refusing to cut their "farming protectionism."  The primary reason for failure, concluded Paris's Liberation, lies with the U.S. and EU's "wish to trade lower subsidies...for open investments in under-developed nations." 


The 'formidable alliance' of G-22 the only reason to rejoice--  Editorials worldwide defended the developing countries' banding together to tell the "mighty where to get off."  They agreed that those countries were right to use their numerical clout to stand up to the "intransigence" of the U.S. and EU.   Despite the lack of progress on substance, the "resolute emergence" of these countries was cause for celebration since it showed that the WTO is not at the "beck and call" of the West.  Though the U.S.-EU stance was "insultingly mean," conservative and business dailies countered that the G-22 may have overplayed its hand and could end up even more "helpless" than before.  "Deriding the African countries' "whoops of delight" over the talks' collapse, London's conservative Daily Telegraph admonished that "any setback" in the Doha Round will leave those players in an "even weaker position."  Chile's leading La Tercera added that the emerging powers "were not pragmatic in assessing the situation and placed demands that were too high.

Poor will 'pay the price' if multilateralism is replaced by bilateralism--  On behalf of the G-22, papers in Brazil, China, India and South Africa warned that the U.S. may attempt to "splinter the newfound alliance" of the world's poor by "dangling bilateral carrots."  A drift toward bilateral deals, they worried, could undermine the foundations of the multilateral trade system.  Concerned about the threat to multilateralism, Nigeria's Guardian averred that the recourse to bilateralism and regional deals will "intensify" the "twin anachronism" of colonialism and imperialism.  "Under the unilateralist and despotic Bush administration," intoned Brazil's Valor Economico, "the U.S. is threatening to prioritize bilateral accords and conduct its trade policy on the basis of political favoritism."

Cancun's after-effects--  Writers were pessimistic that anything positive would follow in Cancun's footsteps.  Reflecting a typical Latin view, Mexico's independent Reforma held that Cancun marked the "drowning of the free trade argument."  Papers in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and Ecuador saw it as a "blow" to the FTAA.  On a more optimistic note, a German business daily argued that the failure had not "set the free trade clock back to zero," emphasizing that it could even have a "salutary shock" effect once working talks resume in Geneva.

EDITOR:  Irene Marr


EDITOR'S NOTE:  This analysis is based on 95 editorials from 44 countries, September 15-26.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.




BRITAIN:  "The Abominable No-Men Menacing World Trade"


Martin Wolf remarked in the independent Financial Times (9/24):  "The collapse of the ministerial meeting of the WTO in Cancun, earlier this month, was a triumph for the 'abominable no-men' of world trade.  At the head of that list are France and India....  Yet the world must find a way forward.  That is perfectly possible; but only if a limited number of big operators first reaches a consensus on the desirability of doing so....   Nor, contrary to what Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, suggested in the FT on September 22, is there a realistic alternative to the WTO.  Mr. Zoellick may wish to expend his energies on bilateral deals instead of twiddling his thumbs in Washington.  But signing deals with marginal operators is therapy rather than serious policy....  The starting-point now is to accept that negotiations do not have to include every WTO member....   What the world needs is a serious negotiation among about 30 countries (with the EU again counted as one).  This is perfectly feasible if the idea that the outcome must bind every member is abandoned."


"The WTO Under Fire"


The independent Economist observed (9/19):  "[Cancun failed] because of intransigence and brinkmanship by both rich and poor countries; because of irresponsible and inflammatory behavior by NGOs; and because of the deeply flawed decision-making system of the WTO itself....  America's bold promises were belied by its actions....  Europe was stymied not just by its desire to mollycoddle its own farmers, but by the EU's cumbersome decision-making process....  But poor countries, too, bear some responsibility for Cancun's collapse....  NGOs, who were at Cancun in force, deserve much of the blame for this radicalistion....  Finally, blame belongs to the WTO's own decision-making procedures, or rather the lack of them....  The a democratic organisation that works by consensus, but with no formal procedures to get there....   If the momentum in trade negotiations moves away from the WTO, the consequences for the organisation itself could be grave....  Everyone would lose from this but, once again, the biggest losers would be the poor countries."


"There Is Cause For Optimism At Cancun"


The center-left Independent editorialized (9/16):  "Had the delegates...who gathered in Cancun been as energetic in finding ways around the obstacles that faced them as they were in throwing blame around, things might have been more successful....  However there is one new factor at work--the emergence of a more formidable alliance of developing nations, led by three populous intermediate economic powers, China, India and Brazil....  For China and the others do have a powerful bargaining chip:  the prospect of Western access to their potentially huge and highly lucrative markets for goods and services.  In return, all the West has to do is buy more of the developing countries' cheap textiles and food.  Such a deal would, according to the World Bank, raise global incomes by $520bn and take 144 million people out of poverty.  The world awaits the next round of WTO talks, to be held by December in Geneva, with at least the satisfaction that progress towards that magnificent prize is still grinding on."


"Cancun Collapses"


The conservative Daily Telegraph took this view (9/16):  "There was something pathetic about the African countries' whoops of delight at the collapse of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks in Cancun....  Any setback in the Doha Round...will leave them in an even weaker position than at present.  Big economic powers such as the EU, America and China are likely to turn instead to regional and bilateral free trade agreements....  In such dealing outside the framework of the WTO, poor, weak nations have next to no say....  The stance of the EU and America was insultingly mean....  It was unreasonable to expect the developing world to swallow them after it had been so shabbily treated over agriculture.  For 55 years, the GATT and its successor, the WTO, have proved an effective stimulus to world trade....  Despite Sunday's setback, it remains the best forum for promoting trade.  And responsibility for its revival lies primarily with the EU and America."


"Cancun Summit: Trade Talks Go To The Wire"


From an editorial in the center-left Guardian (9/15):  "Developing nations are right to use the clout given by their numerical superiority to break the intransigence of the U.S. and EU.  The WTO is not the problem.  The behavior of its richer members is."


FRANCE:  “Europe After the Failed Cancun Summit”


Jacques Amalric asserted in left-of-center Liberation (9/18): “In the short and midterm, the failed Cancun summit and the crisis overtaking the WTO could well benefit the U.S....  The a multilateral international organization....  The Bush administration may be tempted to say goodbye to Cancun and multilateralism and hello to bilateral and regional trade agreements, as Robert Zoellick has already intimated....  These agreements will probably be offered to those countries that are diplomatically close to the U.S. and which acted ‘properly’ in Cancun....  The reason for Cancun’s failure lies with America and Europe’s wish to trade lower subsidies in exchange for open investments in under-developed nations.  The imminence of the U.S. presidential election has re-enforced the U.S. administration’s intransigence....  The question today is what will follow on the footsteps of this disaster?  Nothing positive is to be expected from the present U.S. administration.  It is up to Europe to take over.  And to France to make its actions agree with its proclaimed multilateralism.”


"WTO Is In A Hurry To Draw Lessons From Cancun"


In the economic press centrist La Tribune claimed (9/16): “In sports, when both teams are having a bad day they blame the referee...and demand that he be replaced.… But what is worse than a bad referee is no referee at all… Without the WTO to arbitrate, international trade could become a savage competition where the strong will always come out on top.” 


"The Twilight of Multilateralism"


Jean-Louis Validire commented in right-of-center Le Figaro (9/16): “The U.S. is suspicious of organizations such as the UN and the believes that they are inherently unproductive. The recent crisis with regard to the military intervention in Iraq only served to fuel Washington’s distrust of the UN.… In politics as in trade, Washington does not view multilateralism as a panacea...and prefers to work at the bilateral level.… Washington will only cooperate with those who accept this condition. Sunday Robert Zoellick endeavored to separate the wheat from the chaff by clearing China, which is nonetheless part of the G21, of any responsibility in the failure of the Cancun negotiations. The message is clear. The U.S. will use the WTO to its advantage, and is not interested in its reform.… Today the WTO is a sinking vessel. Its importance in the trade organization of the world could fade away if fruitful negotiations take place elsewhere.”


"The Failure Of Cancun"


The unsigned editorial in left-of-center Le Monde judged (9/16): “Despite this failure we can find one reason to rejoice: in the increasing capacity of the countries of the South to advance their interests. Their resolute emergence, to the point of undermining an agreement at Cancun, paradoxically shows that the WTO is not unilaterally at the beck and call of the North and the free market. It remains a forum for real negotiation concerning international trade regulations… The failure of the summit is, however, a new threat to multilateralism… If the WTO turns into the UN, the U.S. will by-pass it. Indeed, the Bush administration has decided to disregard Cancun preferring to put the emphasis on its bilateral relationships with its partners.” 


GERMANY:  "U.S. Slows Down"


Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau contended (9/23):  "The Dubai meeting did not result in progress with respect to the cancellation of debts of the developing nations nor did the industrialized countries make any concessions with respect to trade and development assistance....  The United States increasingly turns out to be the nation that slows down progress in all sectors of development policy.  Because of the record gap in the U.S. budget, caused by the war costs in Iraq, Washington will make savings for military adventures on the back of the poor at home and abroad."


"A Defeat For The Poor"


Konrad Mrusek judged in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (9/16):  "For the U.S. the reason for the failure is clear:  the developing nations demanded too much and offered too little....  This criticism is partly justified....  But the meeting in Cancun, in the end, did not fail because of trade policy details nor did it fail because of the noble unanimity principle.  In Cancun it became obvious that the two trading powers, America and the EU, no longer set the tone and are unable to implement everything they want.  The club of the wealthy has turned into an association with many different voices....  America and the EU saw themselves on an unusually cooperative defensive in Cancun, because they were exposed to a kind of dual attack.  They had to defend themselves against the Third World and against the Third World groups in their own countries....  And these were the fan groups of the developing nations.  And the wealthy fans of the poor cheered at the failure of the conference as their victory.  But will it really be a victory of the developing nations if the tariff hurdles in agricultural trade do not fall and the WTO is being damaged?  It is a defeat for the poor."


"Not Back To Zero"


Business daily Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg argued (9/16):  "The loser is by no means only the wealthy West...  The price will also be paid by the poor developing nations if the multilateral legal system is now replaced with bilateral agreements.  And in such bilateral talks the stronger side in general asserts its views, and this side usually sits in the northern hemisphere.... Nevertheless, the failure of Cancun will not set the free trade clock back to zero.  The existing WTO rules continue to exist....  It is possible that the éclat from Cancun has the effect of a salutary shock once the talks continue on the working level in Geneva.  Maybe the envoys of developing nations will then understand that the 'Balkanization' of trade will damage trade policy.…  They may then consider an insufficient opening of markets better than no opening at all.  But the United States and the EU will have to rethink their negotiating tactic.  The old style has failed."


ITALY:  "Cancun, Europe’s Mistakes"


Benedetto Della Vedova judged in leading business-oriented Il Sole-24 Ore (9/17):  “The paradox of the centrality of farming is determined above all by the choice of the EU and U.S. to not give up their farming protectionism, even if it is detrimental to the development of many Third World countries, as well as to their own consumers....  The U.S. economy is stronger than the European one and as everyone can see, it continues to develop a global geopolitical influence, that although contradictory, guarantees the possibility of bilateral economic and trade agreements that are not within Europe’s reach....  Now talks will resume in Geneva.  Once out of the limelight, it is probable that the 22 countries that acquired extraordinary political relevance on the world economic scene in Cancun, will sit down at the negotiating table with less bellicose intentions: it is in their interest to avoid trade wars that ultimately could jeopardize their exports to rich countries. It is also for this reason, despite what the U.S. does, that Europe should find its pride and wisdom and give a strong signal on farming, by at least definitively giving up export subsidies.”


"Who Will Pay For The Failure Of The WTO In Cancun"


Federico Rampini opined in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (9/16):  “There was no reason to feel proud for being European in Cancun.  Our economic superpower...had a decisive role in the failure of this summit: we impeded an agreement with Third World countries where the majority of the population has an income of less than two euros per day.  Our negotiators brought home intact the farming protectionism that is an historic anachronism and a planetary shame.  In order to favor a lobby that now represents a mere 3 percent of the European population, we have denied access to our markets to the products of poor farmers, and we inundate their countries with surplus produce sold below cost thanks to state subsidies....  The failure of the WTO is not a defeat for globalization, but rather a victory for a more savage and less regulated globalization.  The truly poor return home empty-handed.  The U.S. will continue along the road it chooses: it will reach bilateral agreements for free trade with single countries....  The EU could have finally demonstrated itself to be a different superpower from the U.S....  Cancun was our chance to indicate the values that we want to represent to the rest of the world.  Europe failed the test.”


"The Defeat of The Big and The Protectionist Wave"


Danilo Taino opined in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (9/15):  “The WTO Conference failed, and for those that opposed this round of liberalization of international exchange, Cancun recalls Seattle in 1999, when another conference failed.… The clash between rich and poor countries is too radical.… Now, there is a serious problem.… The fracture between rich and poor countries widens. This is everyone’s responsibility, but in this case mostly because the advanced countries were not willing to recognize the new power relations in the world. Then there is the EU. It did not look good coming out of the conference. It came out with the image of someone who is hanging on to the privileges of its farmers and that above all is involved in a tug-of-war with the Third World on very sensitive issues like regulations on competitiveness and investments (on which, on the other hand, the U.S. showed indifference). And Italy as well … did not take developing countries into full consideration.… The fact remains that in Cancun the anti-globals are celebrating. They’re probably wrong, but even the others should understand ‘that the world is not for sale.’”


RUSSIA:  "The Rich Put Own Interests Ahead Of Global Well-being"


Reformist Gazeta held (9/16):  "The rich nations preferred to put their farmers' interests ahead of global well-being, thereby proving once again that the WTO is a useful instrument to protect their own markets and producers.  Based on that, Russia should stand firmly by its farmers...and make no concessions where even WTO members cannot reach agreement."


BELGIUM: “Would Trade European Cow For Poor African”


Amid Faljaoui editorialized in in business weekly Trends/Tendances (9/18): “In order not to displease their farm lobbies, leaders of the world two largest economic blocks remain deaf to the poor countries’ requests....  But those opponents to globalization can also partially be blamed for the failure of Cancun.  Indeed, their first mistake was to demonize the WTO, with the risk of forgetting that, within the WTO, each country has a vote and that, as a result, the WTO is much more democratic than the IMF, where the U.S. has a right of veto....   Rather than focusing on its main mission...the WTO has become a madhouse where all frustrations are being expressed and it has been transformed into a kind of free-for-all, achieving no results.”


HUNGARY: “WTO’s Waterloo”


Right-wing conservative Magyar Nemzet concluded (9/20):  "The trade talks in Cancun, after four barren days, failed.  It was due to the deep divide in the visions of the rich and the poor countries....  According to Rockwell Schnabel, the U.S. representative to the EU, the WTO ‘s agenda builds on the consensus that the dismantling of the trade barriers is the best tool for enhancing economic growth and boosting world economy, of which the main beneficiaries would be the developing countries.  But, in the reality, the described ‘consensus’ reflects the interests of the wealthy countries and lacks real facts.  One example is the high price that the developing countries have already had to pay for the capital liberalization that the IMF forced onto them, a cause of serious economic depression.  As said Joseph Stiglitz, the former chief economist of the World Bank ‘the IMF has learnt already that unrestricted liberalization accelerates instability instead of growth.‘  The failure in Cancun shows well that the developing countries have begun to learn the lesson and that some of them are strong enough to reject unilateral criteria.”


IRELAND:  "To Have And Have Not"


Center-right,  populist Irish Independent editorialized (9/16): “The hopes of human kind, it has to be said, were never focused on Cancún.  Rich and poor nations alike simply did not expect the world trade talks in Mexico to succeed.... The collapse of the talks has brought shock, followed by gloom…  it is not simply a matter of intransigence on the part of European or American farmers.  The problem arises chiefly from the world leaders’ lack of breadth and imagination.”


"Fall-out From Failure Cancun"

Center-left Irish Times commented (9/16): “It will be some time before the full implications of the chaotic collapse of the world trade talks in Cancun become clear....   A notable development in was the formation of a negotiating coalition of 21 developing countries, providing a counterweight to the U.S., the EU and Japan.... All sides need to realise that freer trade--on a fairer basis--has the potential to boost living standards across the developing world, Cancún as well as underpinning growth in industrialised countries. The alternative, if the round were to collapse completely, would be uncertainty about the rules governing trade and who implements them. There are already signs that some players will look to strike bilateral trade deals, while in the long term there would be a threat of increasing disputes and even new trade barriers.    The failure of Cancún will surely be recalled in years to come as an important turning point.... Finding a way forward for the multilateral trade system will not be easy, but the price of failing to do so could be very high.”


PORTUGAL: "The Tragic Disillusion in Cancun"


Influential, moderate-left Público noted (9/16): “We shouldn’t be mistaken: the principal blame [for the failure of Cancun] falls on the developed countries, especially the EU, the USA and Japan.  In the American case, we are faced with an enormous political incoherency, since a president who asserts himself as a defender of open commerce insists on a protectionist policy as or more serious than that which led him to tariff the importation of steel to protect a decadent American industry....  Whoever desires to lead the world, give lessons in openness and promote democratic forms of government has to be coherent to the end, even when the decisions are difficult, something which neither the USA, nor the EU were capable of doing in Cancun....  All that is now to be hoped for is that...such important agreements as the opening of markets of poor countries to much less expensive generic medicines will not be lost, another on which the North has an obligation of solidarity with the South.”


SPAIN: "Cancun Enlarges the Fracture"


Independent El Mundo wrote (9/16): "Cancun has failed because social and economic interests have carried more weight than ethical considerations.  It's frustrating, but so it is.  The bigger losers have been the 50 or 60 poorest Asian and African countries not aligned with any group." 




EGYPT:  "Towards Justice In International Free Trade"


Pro-government Al Ahram opined (9/17):  “The failure of the WTO talks in Cancun was but the natural outcome of imbalance in the international economic system and the insistence by wealthy countries on negotiating from the perspective of powers seeking their own interests regardless of considerations of developing and poor countries.  Gradually the majority of the world coping with the policy of globalization accepted a global trend towards further liberalization of international trade and the elimination of barriers and custom tariffs....  However, this course faced a major hurdle with developing countries, which did not show enough flexibility in the negotiations....  Pursuing both justice and interests is the only way to realize the objective of global trade liberalization.”


TUNISIA:  "A Dialogue Of The Deaf "


Manoubi Marouki remarked in independent French-language Le Quotidien (9/16):  The only description that can come to the mind of any smart observer of the WTO Cancun Summit is the following: what occurred was a dialogue of the deaf since the interests of the most powerful countries go against the current of the rest of the planet.  As to be expected, the dialogue failed over the agriculture question…in particular against the outrageous subsidies enjoyed by farmers in the developed countries, in particular the U.S. and Europe …To achieve fair regulations and free trade among 146 countries is impossible. The differences between the countries are too big, and their interests are not comparable.  The only thing to do is to continue the dialogue despite all the differences, and to agree to help those who really need help from among the poor countries less they be destroyed by globalization.”


"Communication Between Rich And Poor Lacking"


Hajer Jeridi stated in independent French-language Le Temps (9/15):“Once again, the communication between the rich and the poor of the world was lacking during the Cancun meeting, which only ended in failure....  This last summit confirmed the status quo and strengthened the position of those who are fighting a discriminatory system that enriches the rich and impoverished the poor.”




AUSTRALIA:  “Marketing A Free Trade Myth”


Christopher Pearson opined in the conservative Australian (9/20-21): “The collapse of the multilateral trade discussions in Cancun is the natural culmination of a system of negotiations that has always been based on duplicity and deceit on the part of the leading trading nations....  The collapse of the Cancun talks gives the Howard Government an opportunity to review trade policy.  If the priority is the U.S. free trade agreement, then perhaps multilateral policy should be directed towards winding back the role of the WTO to a simple entity that focuses on the benefits to countries of unilaterally reducing protection, without the involvement of an overblown international body and expensive pointless negotiations.”


"Trading Places:  A Plea For Fairness"


The liberal Melbourne-based Age noted (9/17):  “When push came to shove in Cancun, however, it became apparent that the key players in the developed world on agricultural trade--the US, the European Union and Japan--were not about to budge in negotiations, let alone abandon their highly protectionist agricultural tariffs. The upshot was that the developing nations en bloc abandoned the negotiation process in protest. One of the lessons in this for the WTO is that the developing nations have become a force to be reckoned with....  There are signs--especially from the EU--that substantive reforms favoring the developing nations are possible. It remains in no one's interest for the process to come to a halt, let alone threaten the integrity of the WTO.”


CHINA:  "No Winners At Cancun Meeting"


Wang Jufang asserted in the China Radio International-sponsored World News Journal (Shijie Xinwenbao, 9/23):  "The most glaring phenomenon of the Cancun meeting was that the developing countries allied themselves for self-improvement....  In this regard, the Cancun meeting was ‘beneficial,’ and even a ‘turning point’ for global multilateral trade negotiation....  However, compared to the developed countries, the failure of the Cancun meetings more negatively impacted developing countries because the developed countries already have the upper hand in many trade sectors...and the developing countries now have to settle problems through bilateral channels since trading regulations can hardly be fulfilled under a multilateral framework.  In addition, developing countries will suffer more losses in bilateral situations due to their lack of bargaining power, negotiating tactics and experience....  The trend of economic globalization is irrevocable.  Therefore a compatible global multilateral trade mechanism is doubtless a necessity.  Developing countries have a responsibility to maintain the operations of this mechanism, while developed countries have larger obligations that they can’t decline.  In this sense, there was no winner at the Cancun meeting."


"We Can’t Bear To Reflect On Cancun Meeting"


Liang Yeqian commented in official International Herald Leader (Guoji Xianqu Daobao) (9/19): “Public opinion thinks that the failure of the Cancun meeting not only casts a shadow on the WTO itself, but also will have a dampening influence on world economic recovery....  It remains to be seen whether or not those results will be beneficial to developing countries....  The greatest difference between this meeting and similar meetings is that voices from developing countries are becoming louder and louder and their opinions are having more and more of an impact.  In the trade organization which previously was called a ‘rich countries’ club,’ all members listened to the U.S. and the EU opinions....  Now the influence of developing countries’ is increasing....  U.S. power politics and unilateralism have aroused dissatisfaction in many countries.  In the meeting, developing countries’ resistance to the U.S. and European proposal was an expression of this feeling.”


"China May Again Encounter Unilateralist Harassment"


Chen Weihua commented in official International Herald Leader (Guoji Xianqu Daobao, 9/19):  "The failure of the meeting proved that a more severe confrontation has emerged within the WTO and the end-result is that multilateralism has been frustrated.  Viewed in the context of modern international relations, once great countries encounter frustration in multilateral frameworks, they will consider two alternatives: to change the international negotiation system ...[or] to seek unilateralism.”


CHINA (HONG KONG SAR):  "A Free World Market Or Hostile Trading Blocs?"


Mike Moore, former prime minister of New Zealand, remarked in the independent English-language South China Morning Post (9/19):  "The failure of the trade ministers meeting in Cancun was bad for both rich and poor countries.  Injustices remain, and the global economy has been sent a mixed message.  The talks were organized to get high-level agreement on how and what to negotiate to implement the Doha Development Agenda, which should be finalized in late 2004 at a conference in Hong Kong.... It is not just the big players who should be blamed.  They also have needs, and many are beginning to think that it will be quicker to build blocs of open trade which, in a decade or so, may come together.  Economists will point out the weaknesses of regionalism because of trade diversion, conflicting rules of origin and difficult, contradictory and costly agreements.  But politicians want to sign things; they need success and headlines....  The answer?  A coalition of self-interest must be put together and an offer worked out that is too good to refuse.  This takes diplomacy and risk, not TV sound bites.  It is about knowing what people need, not what they want."


"Life, Death And The WTO"


Alejandro Reyes argued in the independent English-language South China Morning Post (9/19):  "The core problem is not so much that the WTO wants to play God, but that the 148 members of the UN agency are trying to create 'God'--in the shape of a vast compendium of commercial commandments, what might be called a rulebook for globalization.... Although the WTO operates by consensus, the biggest, richest members wield the most influence. Several smaller, developing countries have banded together in strategic coalitions.  But to declare Cancun a victory of the have-nots over the haves would be wrong.  Neither was this a rejection of globalization.  What we are witnessing is evidence of what I would call globophobia, or the fear of globalization.  We are all globophobic to some degree.  We share a nagging fear: that somehow globalization, as we are shaping it, is unleashing forces that are leading us to lose control over our individual destinies.... There is also the fear that the more interconnected we become, the more we may lose control of our culture and moral standards.  Some of these concerns are warranted; some are not."


JAPAN:  "Don't Kill WTO Framework!"


Liberal Asahi observed (9/18):  "The free trade system that has been taking root since the end of World War II is now facing an unprecedented crisis in the wake of the WTO ministerial in Cancun where rich and poor nations failed to reach an accord because of bitter disagreements.  At the Cancun ministerial, the most difficult negotiations centered on farm trade issues where developing countries severely criticized the U.S. and EU's heavy subsidization of their farm exports.... Following the ministerial, USTR Zoellick stressed the need to give more weight to bilateral or regional free trade agreements (FTAs) than to the WTO framework.  But we regard FTAs as a supplementary mechanism for the WTO framework of free trade.  Japan had been so protective of its domestic farm industry by continuing to impose super-high tariffs on foreign rice that it failed to urge the U.S. and EU to reduce subsidies for farm exports or win support from developing nations.  Having failed to demonstrate its leadership at the Cancun ministerial, Japan appears to be becoming isolated from the world trade system."


 "Doha Round Should Be Restructured And Concluded"


 Moderate Tokyo Shimbun observed (9/17):  "The WTO ministerial in Cancun collapsed on Sunday without any accord due to bitter disagreements between rich and poor nations. The breakdown has made it difficult for WTO members to conclude the current Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations by the January 1, 2005 deadline.  Nations concerned should draw on their wits and resources to restructure and conclude the Doha Round. Both rich and poor nations should now meet halfway and return to points of mutual agreement from where they should restart negotiations. Even in the aftermath of the failed Cancun ministerial, WTO member nations should not be inclined to conclude free trade agreements. A multilateral accord is always the foundation of free world trade."


SOUTH KOREA: “ROK Facing More Difficulties After Collapse of World Trade Talks”


The independent Dong-a Ilbo editorialized (9/16): “With the collapse of the fifth WTO ministerial conference in Cancun, Mexico, the ROK has been put in a more difficult situation, especially in rice trade negotiations.  This is because we have to renegotiate with rice exporters, such as the U.S., China and Australia, on the opening of our rice market, which accounts for half of the income of our farming industry....   It would be wrong for the ROKG to delay restructuring the agriculture industry or to give farmers the illusion that we don’t have to open our agricultural market, as a result of the breakdown of the world trade talks.”    


"Bumpy Road Lies Ahead of ROK Agriculture Industry"


The nationalist, left-leaning Hankyoreh Shinmun editorialized (9/16): “Even though the collapse of the fifth WTO ministerial conference has bought us a little more time for negotiations, this is not necessarily a favorable situation for us.  With the breakdown of the talks, chances are high that the phenomenon of regional bloc formation will further accelerate, aggravating our overall export/import environment.  With regard to the agriculture sector, as this Cancun draft resolution will very likely become the major reference material for future trade negotiations, our farming industry might be in danger of collapsing.  In addition, even if we are successful in keeping our developing-nation status, it is crystal clear that we will be under much stronger pressure to open up our agricultural market.”


INDONESIA: "Motion Against Advanced Countries Among Commonwealths"


Leading independent Kompas asserted (9/18):  “Under the pretext of trade liberation, advanced countries want to grind down developing countries’ markets.  Products from developing countries would certainly lose if competition and trade runs only in one direction.  It is a reasonable fear that trade liberalization will end up as new global colonialism.”   


"WTO Failure: Doha Agenda Minus ‘Development’"


Mari Pangestu contended in the independent English-language Jakarta Post (9/17):  “The recent failure of the WTO Ministerial in Cancun to agree to move forward reflects a continual lack of regard of the major members of WTO for the interests and concerns of developing countries.  By the eleventh hour, there was just not enough on the table regarding developing countries – the majority of the WTO’s 146 members.  There is now great skepticism of the January 1, 2005 deadline for the end of negotiations.”  


MALAYSIA:  "Triumph And Defeat In Cancun"


The government-influenced English language New Straits Times editorialized (9/16):  "Let's not mince words here.  Cancun failed because the rich and powerful nations didn't change their ways.  They thought they could continue to bully the poor nations and get away with it.  They didn't this time, at the WTO talks in Cancun, because Third World countries were united and determined to defeat the developed countries in their attempt to force their agenda down the throats of the poor.  It may not be apparent but Cancun was also a victory for democracy.  The majority of the world's population represented at Cancun successfully out-foxed the minority of developed nations who had tried to manipulate them into acceding to their demands.  The voice of the majority carried the day to the delight of human rights, democracy and anti-globalization activists gathered at the Mexican seaside resort."


PHILIPPINES:  "A Sellout?"


Commenting on Trade Secretary Roxas' statement that the Philippines should consider bilateral agreements with other nations, the liberal Today (9/26): “This is precisely the sort of mentality the European Union and the United States like to foster, and which those who exulted over the muscle-flexing by developing nations at the WTO feared most. For faced with an organized and aggressive solidarity bloc comprising the developing world, the EU and USA have begun to exact agreements with poor nations on a bilateral basis. In more nakedly imperialist times, this was known as ‘divide and conquer.’…What the U.S. and the EU cannot get through IMF-World Bank dictation or the WTO, they seek to manage to get through one-on-one bullying.  The collapse of Cancun was meant to demonstrate that the developing nations preferred no agreement to a bad agreement in the form of a big power diktat.... The Philippines joined in that exultation and even tried to claim some credit for standing firm. Yet so soon, the head of the Philippine delegation is now preaching economic appeasement to the big powers. Either Mar Roxas hasn’t explained himself well or he is leading a sellout.”


"Splitting The WTO"


Columnist Bernardo Lopez wrote in the independent Business World (9/25):  “The collapse (of the Cancun talks)…was a victory for the poor nations who formed in the blink of an eye the Group of 21....  For the first time, the rich nations, which dominated the Uruguay and Doha rounds, were rattled....  If the rich will never give an inch, there is no choice but to split the WTO into two: a WTO faction for the rich, a WTO faction for the poor.  Only in a polarized war do we have a chance.  We are helpless in a melee.  After all, with the impasse at Cancun, there are only two scenarios: one, the WTO will die a natural death, replaced by the previous practice of regional and bilateral agreements; two, the WTO will split into rich and poor sectors.  Either way, there is no choice but to address sharing, and harmony opposed to greed and arrogance, …if we want a harmonious world order.”


"Rich Countries Not Ready To Share Trade"


Beth Day Romulo wrote in her column in the independent Manila Bulletin (9/25):  “This year, the poorer, developing countries had the good sense to band together, forming the Group of 21, which can hardly be ignored since it represents the majority of the world’s small farmers and also a majority of the world population.…Now that the 21…have banded together, created a common agenda, and speak with one voice, it will be more difficult in the future for the special interests of U.S., EU and Japan to ignore their demands.  These are not a bunch of shouting crazies trying to cut down the wire fences that protect the conference hall.  They are inside the hall, clearly enunciating what constitute fair global trade practices.  The battle is far from over....  The one success for the poor nations…was the U.S. reversal of its former opposition to allowing poor countries to buy cheap generic versions of life-saving drugs which are produced in India and Brazil without breaking international trade laws that protect patents for giant pharmaceutical companies.  This was one instance were, despite the opposition of the powerful pharmaceutical companies, a moral argument outweighed a commercial one.”


"Imperialists Not Giving Up"


Teddy Casino, leader of the activist group Bayan, noted in the independent Business World (9/19):  “The industrialized countries exposed their hypocritical stance vis-à-vis globalization and free trade....  The developing countries...gave the...industrialized countries the dirty finger....  But the imperialists are not about to give up.  Negotiations will now shift to Geneva, where the WTO missions of various countries are based.  This will mean a less transparent process involving lower level functionaries, giving the powerful countries more room to maneuver....  The U.S. and EU are also intent on forging bilateral free trade agreements with individual countries.  These trade pacts...often contain harsher commitments than those made under the WTO since the weaker countries have no benefit of alliances (like the Group of 22) or multilateral negotiating tactics to leverage themselves with.”


 SINGAPORE:  "Cancun Is A Watershed--Not A Tragedy"


Anthony Rowley editorialized in the pro-government Business Times (9/18): "The failure of the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Doha Round in Cancun is not the tragedy that those bent on rapid liberalisation of trade and investment regimes would have us believe.  Rather, it presents an opportunity for profound reflection by all parties upon the whole issue of globalisation and upon the socioeconomic consequences of trying to integrate nations at very different stages of development rapidly.  Cancun, Mexico is not the first example of a dramatic setback for the WTO.... The latest failure should therefore make it abundantly clear that the WTO is heading in a fundamentally wrong direction, or, at the very least, at too fast a pace....  It really is time to stop pushing for further WTO Rounds, at least for the time being.  Even now, the global economic system has not fully taken onboard (let alone adjusted to) the consequences of the great surge in global manufacturing investment and production, which has taken place as a result of previous WTO Rounds and of regional and bilateral free trade agreements.  These may yet produce a social backlash against the consequences of overcapacity.  In this sense, Cancun is a watershed rather than a tragedy." 


"Cancun Sees World Split"


The pro-government Straits Times observed (9/16):  "As an interim step to a global agreement to regulate world commerce, the inconclusive Cancun trade talks need not spell a collapse of the process....  But the Cancun session provided enough danger signs that governments and trade diplomats would not have missed. World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations are turning into a surrogate war between developing and poor nations and the one-sixth of the globe considered rich....  The two sides simply did not recognize the priority of the other. Small wonder the talks stopped dead at that point....  What now? Every specialist is agreed that bloc deals and nation-to-nation trade agreements are the next best thing.... But as Singapore's Trade Minister George Yeo noted, weak nations will still be disadvantaged in direct deals--if at all they are appealing partners to the mercantile heavyweights....  Hope must be kept alive after Cancun. But it will take a supreme act of statesmanship to bring a change in WTO member nations' entrenched sense of mutual suspicion. Whose move--the U.S., Japan, Group of 21, Europe...Cairns...? Here, the playing field is level."


THAILAND:  “Failure Of The Doha Trade Round In Cancun”


Business-oriented Prachachart Turakij observed (9/24):  “In sum, developing countries are now pleased that they have been able to unite against their developed counterparts under the WTO multilateral framework and successfully weakened the latter’s domination.  Nevertheless I’m afraid this victory may be a hollow one.  If multilateral talks cannot continue, pressure in developed countries to protect domestic markets would intensify and developing countries would suffer serious disadvantages when they have a one-on-one negotiation with their developed counterparts in the future.”


"Another Setback For World Trade"


The lead editorial in the independent, English language Nation read (9/16):  “Without progress on global trade liberalization talks, there is a danger that countries will resort to trade protectionism.  Already, bilateral free trade arrangements have been mushrooming because so many countries have lost faith in the WTO’s ability to look after their interests.  It seems that at the moment, the best they can expect is to join a regional free trade bloc, a concept that is proliferating.  This raises the specter of the world being pushed into protectionist trade blocs.  So there is an urgent need for the WTO to prove its worth once again.  In theory, countries benefit more from multilateral trade arrangements than from bilateral or regional trade arrangements....  In light of the prospect of a complete disruption to the process of globalization, it’s critical that countries get together and adhere to a rules-based, and thus ultimately fair, trading system.”




INDIA: "Cancan At Cancun"


MP Mani Shankar Aiyar editorialized in the centrist Telegraph (9/23):  "It would be churlish to deny Arun Jaitley his moment of glory at Cancun....  Vajpayee continues to chase the Holy Grail of a special relationship with the U.S.  The U.S. is not interested; what the U.S. wants is not an India in special relationship with them but an India in subsidiary alliance, where we will provide them with Indian levies to die for them in Iraq in exchange for thirty pieces of silver....  Can we sustain an anti-U.S./EU position in external trade with a pro-U.S./EU tilt in external affairs?  It is, after all, an unequal bargain.  If we throw ourselves on Western mercy and benevolence, we are one of a large crowd.  Washington will extract from us in external commerce what few bones it is willing to throw us in external affairs." 


"Celebrate Cancun, But With Caution"


The centrist Indian Express noted (9/21):  “A ‘no deal’ has made [Arun Jaitley] look like a winner, but I would like to caution him that, in the long run, a ‘no deal’ will hurt India and other developing countries.  The whole basis of the WTO is dealmaking...and it is the capacity of ministers to produce agreements that has made the WTO a very different kind of international body....  The sooner India shakes off this ‘forever poor’ obsession, the better India and Indians will be.  India needs more agreements in the WTO.  So does every other country.  A ‘no deal’ WTO will hurt the developing countries more than the developed countries.  If no agreements are reached in the WTO, that does not mean there will be no agreements at all.  In that event, there will be more Regional Trading Agreements (RTA), multilateral or bilateral agreements and, worse, sweetheart deals....  The U.S. and the EU will offer, separately or together, bilateral agreements to many developing countries, and many of them will take up such offers.  The worst situation will be if sweetheart deals proliferate....  A ‘no deal’ at Cancun may have the flavor of victory, but a permanent stance of ‘no deals’ or ‘no more deals’ will permanently rob India of the potential to grow into a developed and strong economy.”


"The After Effects Of Cancun"


Pradeep Mehta declared in the pro-economic-reforms Economic Times (9/20):  “The solidarity shown by the poor countries at the Cancun trade meet which came as a surprise to many, is a genuine reason for pride in the developing world.  It showed what can be achieved in a democratic institution.  If only trade negotiations were truly a democratic business!...  Looking at the statements made by U.S. officials before and since the meeting, it appears as if they were only waiting for an opportunity to move away from the multilateral to the regional and bilateral track....  The institution of WTO is itself set to change, as both the two trading powers want sweeping changes in the way it operates....  In 2003, it seems as if polarization between the rich and the poor may still be deeply entrenched.  We cannot forecast the impact of this in future in either of the areas of economic and political relations, but if this new-found developing country solidarity can be sustained, it could bring in a new power equation among the rich and the poor countries of the world.”


"Trading Places"


The centrist Telegraph opined (9/20): “The rich countries made a grave miscalculation in Cancun....  They thought they could divide the group of 21 developing states and have their way in the last days of the conference. The Americans, at least, came prepared for that scenario....  India’s insistence in Cancun that there is no grand alliance of the Third World, but only issue-based agreements among delegations is as significant as Jaitley’s hold together the group of 22 in the face of disinformation, cheque-book diplomacy and crude threats by rich nations.  It is also a measure of the effectiveness of the strategy that Jaitley pursued in Cancun that no one at any stage challenged the morality or the fairness of the stand taken by India and other developing countries--not Lamy, not the U.S. trade representativeand certainly not the WTO chief...who actually intervened in the proceedings at one stage on behalf of the extremely poor cotton-growing African states ravaged by subsidies for cotton farmers in George W. Bush’s home state of Texas."


"Cancun: Not A Requiem For Multilateralism"


The pro-economic-reforms Financial Express expressed (9/19):  “Cancun tore at the seams.  Symbolic gestures have a way of calling attention when everyone gets caught up in the detail.  The betrayal on cotton became a symbol....  Having pushed the WTO’s Cancun ministerial to the brink, the U.S. and EU trade representatives were churlish in their response to a collapse they virtually engineered....  Neither the U.S. nor EU were keen on the kind of compromise that the developing world was about to secure.  The time had come to cut losses, quit and quickly find a scapegoat....  The core issue at Cancun was agricultural subsidies.  Everything else was secondary.  If Old Europe will not give up its butter mountains how can New Africa earn bread?....  The second thing that is clear after Cancun, is that the Singapore issues are virtually out of the Doha Round....  Cancun was a way station for the Doha Round, not the final destination.  So what if the journey has been slowed down, perhaps even derailed for a while, mainly on account of the timetable of U.S. Presidential elections, it will resume, like the Uruguay Round did and there will be more jaw-jaw."


"Arun's Can-can" 


The pro-BJP right-of-center Pioneer declared (9/17):  "The bad news from Cancun is that the World Trade Organization's fifth ministerial meeting fell apart. The good news is that David slew Goliath--by snatching moral victory from defeat....  As also the memory of the historic moment at Cancun when the world's less privileged told the mighty where to get off."


"Greed vs. Equity"


The centrist Times of India commented (9/16):  "With the developing countries forced to liberalize trade and open up markets, this has brought millions of Third World farmers to the brink of penury and starvation.  Yet, for all the moral poignancy of this rhetoric, the breakdown of talks is a grave blow.  Global trade, for all its inequity, represents the only real long-term hope for the world's poor.  While many in the West would be happy to let the WTO go, a vulnerable Third World has a far greater stake in an internationally agreed mechanism for regulating global trade.  What's more, the unity displayed by the developing world at Cancun will come under increasing strain in the coming months, with the U.S., along with the EU, 'picking off' individual countries for bilateral deals, not to mention regional trading blocs....  In other words, there is a need urgently to work out a joint long-term strategy and revive the failed Cancun process.  As for the West, it must face up to the fact that an equitable global trade is not just a moral imperative but a long-term economic necessity.  It cannot continue to prosper, while the rest of the world lives in poverty. "


PAKISTAN:  "Failure At Cancun"


Karachi-based center-left independent national English-language Dawn maintained (9/17):  "The WTO ministerial conference, which was critical for rapid recovery of the global economy, collapsed in Cancun on Sunday, following the failure of delegates to bridge deep differences over agricultural, investment and competition rules....  If the industrialized world does not provide an even playing field in trade to the developing states, globalization will be retarded and there will be slower economic recovery that would benefit neither the North nor the South."


SRI LANKA:  "WTO Crash--A Fresh Chance For Asia"


Independent English-language Mirror commented (9/17):  "The United States, the European Union and Japan...used all their neo-colonial hammer out a world trade pact by the end of next year but it now seems highly improbable....  Representatives of the Third World, led by India, Brazil and South Africa, claim they...scored a political victory in proving they would no longer be bullied into a bad deal by the dominant trading powers....  In this contrary and confusing scenario, Sri Lanka also would need to seriously reflect on whether we are going to follow World Bank strategies wholesale or whether we should work out an alternative arrangement linked more to regional groups like SAARC, ASEAN or the Pan Asia Economic Cooperation Forum mooted by Thailand."


"The Significance Of The Cancun Collapse"


Independent English-language Island opined (9/17):  "Cancun is significant in that...after years the poor of the world picked up enough courage to say 'no' to the rich and mighty....  The Cancun summit collapsed...because the poor nations...demanded that countries such as the U.S....lower their huge agricultural subsidies....  It has been pointed out that rich nations pay as much as $300 billion in subsidies to their farmers, leading to over production of many crops...that are dumped on global markets, depressing prices and rendering farmers of the developing countries absolutely destitute....  It is indeed encouraging that they have, after a long period of servitude, summoned enough courage to defy the rich and mighty.  To meekly submit to policies in silence that will keep the poor of the world in rags and hunger makes no sense."




SOUTH AFRICA:  "Cancun Debacle"


The liberal Mercury declared (9/17):  "A very strong and valid point has been made.  It is close to nonsensical to forge international agreements on liberalized free trade when a vital portion of such commerce is based not in liberal market principles but in the worst sort of dirigiste protectionism....  Farmers in the developing world are unable to compete in their own markets, which receive vast quantities of cheap agricultural products, dumped from the developed world.  Agriculture is the primary economic activity of the developing word, and such a distortion is manifestly unfair, and ultimately undesirable for all....  The point having been well made, the next challenge is to get it seriously on the international agenda."


"Cancun Conundrum"


Dr. Iraj Abedian opined in pro-government, Afro-centric Sowetan (9/17):  "It is easy to apportion blame to developing countries for the lack of institutional capacity to engage in the reform process.  It is just as easy to accuse the developed countries for their intransigence about a number of trade reforms, be they linked to farm subsidies or intellectual property rights.  The sum total of the situation, however, perpetuates inequality, creates global instability and constitutes a major stumbling block to improving the standard of living of poor nations.  Significantly, there are no built-in or self-correcting mechanisms to rectify these flaws.  On the contrary, if the socio-economic system is left to itself, global disparities are bound to increase and the collective vulnerabilities of the poor and the rich nations will multiply.  Intelligent and rational interventions are thus needed to reform the system in a holistic and sustainable manner."




The Afrikaans language, centrist Beeld editorialized (9/16):  "Now it's the poorer, developing countries who are standing together against the rich nations of the West, particularly the U.S., to try and force them to do away with the outrageous large subsidies paid to their farmers....  The rich countries make it impossible for poor, developing countries to compete because of these large subsidies.  This worsens poverty, hunger and political instability in developing countries.  It is time that consumers in the first world realize that it is their money that worsens poverty."


"Battle Lost, But Not The War"


The liberal Star commented (9/16):  "Poor countries that stood up against the rich countries should be congratulated.  They deserve our unqualified support despite the fact that they did not win the battle because the talks geared at addressing the concerns of poor countries collapsed....  The developing countries, and Africa in particular, should continue to campaign for fair trade.  This will be a long and protracted struggle....  If the developed countries do not want to adhere to fair trade, then they should accept that poor nations will keep on coming to them to beg for aid.  Even more to the point, as poverty deepens in the developing world governments will be weaker and global terrorism will flourish in areas where there are no strong governments to enforce the law.... So the rich countries do not have a choice."


"Content, Not Pontificating, Was What Killed Cancun"


Assistant editor Max Gebhardt opined in the liberal Business Report (9/16):  "What is astounding is that the EU and U.S. either haven't realized that it was the substance, and not the process, of the discussions that caused the collapse or they have chosen, for political reasons, to ignore this fact entirely....  The worry now is what this will do to future WTO meetings.  The US is already saying it will now focus on bilateral trade negotiations with favoured nations.  The threat is very clear.  Developing nations might find themselves on the outside of any future bilateral trade deals, overshadowed by the might of the developed world."


GHANA:  “Lessons From Cancun Talks”


The national government-owned Ghanaian Times editorialized (9/17):  “If anything, the talks produced a new twist to the conduct of such meetings when developing countries, for once, refused to accept the so-called revised terms of trade proposed by the 15-member European Union with the U.S., in collaboration in direct contrast to their objectives. This is not a situation where a bluff has been called by any side in the bargain. It is the scenario which is very familiar with the powerful nations of the world in their unrelenting determination to place developing nations in a perpetual state of 'hewers of wood and drawers of water.'  And for the first time in many years, the poor nations have been loud and clear that no longer can they continue to be mere supplicants at the feet of any power.... The spectre of neo-colonialism stares developing nations in the face and our leaders can only fight the ‘monster’ only when they stick together.”


KENYA:  "Cancun: The Lessons Not Learnt"


Gichinga Ndirangu judged in the independent left-of-center Nation (9/24): “In the WTO environment where the weak and poor negotiate with the rich and powerful, democracy is a necessary evil--not an option.  Zoellick has also joined the chorus in slanging the multilateral system.  There is early indication that the U.S. will intensify its push for bilateral trade deals as it steadily turns its back on multilateral negotiations.  As with Lamy, Zoellick is keen to rock the boat where America’s national trade interests do not converge with the concerns of developing countries.  The lessons of last week’s collapse have, therefore, not been learnt which provides little comfort to poor countries.  Indeed, the posturing of these two savvy negotiators smacks of blackmail and hypocrisy.”


"What Next For The Poor After Cancun?"


Samuel Kumba wrote in the KANU party-owned Kenya Times (9/23): “The experience of many countries which tried to sell their produce around the world is discouraging....  If your main export is coffee...or copper, or may feel the bottom has dropped out of your world and more liberalized trade is the last thing you need.  The developed countries make the rules, and...they drive a hard bargain.  That is one of the campaigners’ chief objections to the WTO,  that it is a club to make the rich richer....  The Cancun having ended in disarray, developing countries must quickly put heads together and chart a new way forward.”


"What Next, After Cancun?"


The independent, intellectual weekly East African held (9/22-28):  “In the aftermath of Cancun, there are now fears that the world’s leading trading nations, who also double as donors, could decide to lash back at some developing countries for standing firm at the ill-fated WTO talks....  For blue water trade, East Africa must unequivocally resolve to look to eastern markets as alternatives for the increasingly protected traditional Western markets....  The real lesson from Cancun for East Africa is not that powerful nations will subvert global agreements for their selfish ends.  Poor nations like East Africa’s must, therefore, endeavor to develop innovative ways to penetrate the global market without waiting for anyone’s helping hand. ”


"WTO Takes A Beating From Poor Countries"


Ochieng Rapuro wrote in the independent pro-business Standard (9/22):  “Alarmed by the ability of developing nations to rally their rank around specific standpoints on the summit’s agenda, despite the knee-jack tactics used to scatter them in the past, the developed world has launched a fierce media campaign placing everything that went bad in Cancun at the doorsteps of developing nations....  With Cancun water under the bridge, it can only be expected that battle for international trade will shift to other fronts.  Tamed by the collective will of poor countries, the United States and its allies could quickly change course.  Having left Cancun badly wounded, the world’s economic powerhouse is said to be considering entering into bilateral agreements with countries that are ready to play the hardball that is liberalized trade.”


NIGERIA: "Reform WTO To Cater For African Interest"

The Lagos-based respected Guardian contended (9/24): "Beyond Cancun, the various global trade blocks need to recognize the primacy of negotiation and consensus as the central plank of the WTO.  The world and every country that must trade, need a framework under the WTO as a forum for negotiating multilateral trade. The growing recourse to bilateralism and regional trade deals will only breed and intensify colonialism and imperialism, a twin anachronism....  The time is ripe for African and developing countries to persuade developed countries to concede to their objectives in order to reverse the upward trend of poverty through trade and development as opposed to aid and retrogression."

"In The Interest Of World Peace"


The Lagos-based independent This Day argued (9/24):  "The tragedy of the failure is that everyone--both rich and poor nations--will lose all round....  Growing economic disparities between rich and poor nations can only increase and intensify global problems.  And the problems are bound to become more threatening to world peace when those who bear the burden are able to trace their condition to unfair trade practices of their neighbor.  There is no doubt that the world could be a better place with less poor people.  Diseases which know no boundaries would not only be less, terrorists would have fewer mal-contents from which to recruit....  And because the surest means of ensuring global economic prosperity and the accompanying peace is through fair trade, it is imperative that the Cancum talks be brought back on track."


TANZANIA:  "The Rich Must Open Up Their Markets"


The government-owned Daily News stated (9/22):  "It is time for rich nations to reconsider their stance on farm subsidies and opening up access to their markets by poor countries following the recent collapse of the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks in Cancun, Mexico.  Tanzania and other developing countries had a common position that the multilateral trade talks could only proceed if the Western nations opened up their markets and stopped giving their farmers ridiculous subsidies....  Delegates from developing countries rightly pressed for fair trade in Cancun, insisting on the need for the rich to honor pledges made during the 2001 WTO ministerial conference in Doha, Qatar, where a development agenda was adopted.  It is unfortunate that the Doha Development Agenda, which is regarded as road map for easing global trade barriers, is yet to be fulfilled."


"WTO: Cancun And Crocodile Tears!"


Kiswahili anti-government Majira (9/19):  "Talks at the WTO summit in Cancun collapsed due to pressure from developing countries.  After the collapse of the summit, developed countries are now shedding crocodile tears.  EU countries are lamenting that the collapse of the talks will deny developing countries the benefits of an agricultural agreement they had prepared.  The free market has been turned into a chaotic market.  Europe and America offer their farmers massive subsidies, which kill the market of agricultural products from poor countries.  As if that was not enough, developed countries even subside the transport costs of their agricultural products.  Europe and America are calling on poor countries to open up their markets for products from rich countries, but they are closing their markets for products from poor countries!”


"After Solidarity, Boost Cooperation"


Pro-government Kiswahili-language tabloid Uhuru stated (9/17):  "At the recently held WTO Cancun Summit, rich countries demonstrated their arrogance by clinging to their trading system that oppresses developing countries.  As a result of this, the talks collapsed without any agreement being reached. This is the first time that the more than 100 developing countries have displayed such solidarity in defending their interests....  Developing nations should stick together and should not change their stance. The rich countries need us as markets for their products.  Developing countries should now intensify trade between themselves. Countries like China and India for example could produce products that are much needed by other developing countries, thus lessening our dependence on the West.”


UGANDA:  "WTO:  Which Way Uganda?"


The independent Monitor declared (9/17):  "Every country lost when the World Trade Organization talks collapsed in Cancun, Mexico, in what has been described as a spaghetti-bowl of conflicting ambitions between developed and developing nations.... The rich have refused to bargain.  They want to buy from the poor countries market at low prices and gain easy access for their own products under a new foreign investment arrangement.  The poor refused the deal....  The collapse of the talks leaves poor countries with a choice between being isolated further or accepting America’s bilateral Free Trade Areas.  The U.S. trade representative has already said that America intends to use the FTAs to reward 'friends.'  Such arrangements, however, leave poor nations with little to bargain with against powerful nations. The poor remain beggars."


"The Struggle Continues"


The state-owned New Vision commented (9/16):  "World trade talks at the Mexican resort of Cancun have collapsed acrimoniously.  Rich countries wanted to ease restrictions on cross-border trade and foreign investment.  But this is a smokescreen for their continued insistence on subsidizing their farmers.  The World Bank has estimated that 144 million people would be lifted out of poverty and $500 billion added to global incomes if agricultural subsidies were eliminated.  A further round of trade talks is scheduled for December.  The rest of the world should maintain their pressure on Europe and America to drop agricultural subsidies.  Right is on their side.  Eventually there will be a breakthrough."




CANADA:  "Protectionism On The Rise"


The conservative National Post opined (9/18): "Thanks to the collapse of international trade talks in Cancun...Third World farmers and First World taxpayers are at greater peril than at any time since the WTO was formed in 1994 out of the old GATT.  The EU and the Japanese are the most obvious culprits.  But the Americans are not far behind.  And U.S. presidential politics may make the U.S. the hardest party to lure back to the table....  Even in the four days since Sunday's failure, however, disturbing signs have emerged that George W. Bush's administration is planning to draw a curtain around America's economy.  Faced with a loss of more than two million manufacturing jobs since the U.S. President took office in January, 2001, and beset by a perceived need to butter up such key agricultural states as Florida, Tennessee and Kansas...the White House is mumbling about pouring yet more cash on America's already over-subsidized sugar, cotton, corn and produce growers....  The history of economics teaches that protectionism acts as a contagion....  If governments in the U.S., Japan and the EU do not summon the courage to confront the small but powerful agriculture lobbies wagging their trade policies, it is not just the Doha round of the WTO that will be at risk, but the health of the global economy."


"Rich States Turn Backs On Poor Once More"


Richard Gwyn observed in the liberal Toronto Star (9/17):  "There may be a retreat from multilateral liberalization if the United States, as it has threatened, now ignores the WTO to do one-on-one pacts with favoured countries (like Australia). It's been said many times that what's needed as an integral part of the war on terror is a war on poverty. At Cancun, the U.S., but no less so Europe and Japan, turned their backs on the poor (with Canada simply looking the other way). The unresolved question is whether more of the poor will now become terrorists."


"Failure Of WTO Talks A Blow For Globalization"

The conservative Montreal Gazette commented (9/16):  "By linking their own political will to reduce farm subsidies to the developing world's willingness to discuss issues relating to investment and competition, rich nations have short-circuited the cause of global trade liberalization....  Without movement on agricultural supports by rich nations, poor countries won't be able to benefit fully from globalization.... When Japan and the European Union linked progress on agriculture to other issues in Cancun, the so-called G-21 coalition of poor nations, including Brazil and India, understandably perceived a stalling tactic.  It didn't help that U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick accused poor nations of looking for "a freebie."  By insisting as firmly as they did that agriculture should be given the top priority in international trade negotiations, the G-21 have drawn a line in the political sand that all true free traders should applaud."


"The Third World's Stand"


The leading Globe and Mail opined (9/16):  "If the collapse of the global trade talks in Cancun shows anything, it is that the world's poor countries are no longer prepared to be doormats for the rich and that they have summoned the collective will to do something about it.  The developing countries finally stood up to the combined might of the United States, Japan and the European Union....  The problem now for the World Trade Organization is how to find a way to bridge the wide gulf between the sides and get them back to the table.  The cost of failure would be staggering for all participants. But it is the poor countries that would pay the highest price....  Failure will only mean a renewed focus on regional trading blocs and bilateral deals with handpicked partners.  Poor countries will still find themselves squeezed out of wealthy markets and unable to compete with heavily subsidized producers.  Years of work toward establishing a level global playing field will go down the drain. What a tragic waste that would be."

"The North South Volcano Erupts In Cancun"

Journalist Joneed Khan wrote in the centrist La Presse (9/16):  "  The Cancun failure is a defeat for both sides even if the rich countries have options not available to poor countries."

ARGENTINA: "Cancun Canned"

Michael Soltys, executive editor of liberal, English-language Buenos Aires Herald wrote (9/16) "The refusal of the U.S. and the EU to cut some 280 billion dollars of agricultural subsidies... led to a complete deadlock with the G21/22....  But there is also reason to believe that the trade talks foundered on a more general opposition of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries to globalization, especially where government procurement and investment rules are concerned.  It could also be argued that the Cancun summit was trapped by its own 'single undertaking' concept that nothing be agreed until everything is agreed.  If indeed 'trapped' is the right word--if the rich countries wanted things to move forward at all. The collapse of the WTO huddle is the worst failure in the world trade talks since Seattle in 1999--it is also a clear blow to achieving a FTAA by 2005."


"Argentine Optimism At The WTO"


Alejandro Rebossio concluded in daily-of-record La Nacion (9/16):  "The Argentine delegation attempted to find some positive points obtained by the country and other developing countries in the failed WTO summit....  Argentina, together with Brazil, China, India and South Africa, led the new and powerful G22, which had a hard stance in the first days of the summit, but in the end unsuccessfully attempted to approach the U.S., the EU and Japan, the three largest protectionist blocs.  USTR Robert Zoellick accused them of changing position too late.  The US expects a more flexible attitude from Latin American countries in the FTAA negotiation... but made it clear it is negotiating 45 bilateral deals, none of them with Brazil or Argentina.  Argentina was seen by analysts on a second line within the G22, although visible, having a more professional and firmer attitude than in previous summits, but flexible when time comes to seek consensus."


"Trade And Argentina After Cancun"


In business-financial El Cronista Felix Peña opined (9/16):  "Cancun failed. It will be necessary to save the WTO.  For this purpose, negotiations will have to continue.  The leadership of developed countries has been tested.  It is hard now to predict the immediate evolution of negotiations and even less to anticipate the effects of the Cancun failure on other negotiations of interest to Argentina and Mercosur, the FTAA and the EU.  Everything will have to be renegotiated because it seems obvious that the agricultural issue will not have a satisfactory response at the WTO, at least in the planned timing."


BRAZIL: "Tied Game"


Right-of-center O Globo noted (9/23): "President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is going to speak at the UNGA today, while the Brazilian position taken at the Cancun summit as the G-22 leader still resounds....  The reactions range from applause to irritated criticism....  One should not think that with the G-22 [Brazil] will be able to bypass the U.S.  The world's largest market is an inevitable partner for someone who needs to expand its foreign trade. The Cancun impasse and weakening of the WTO--indeed dangerous--put the world in a cycle of bilateral negotiations with rich countries on the other side of the bargaining table.  Brazil should demonstrate the same efficiency at this new stage with the FTAA.  In Cancun the game ended up a tie.  To break it, a lot of talk is necessary." 


"The Fury Of The Rich Nations"


Clovis Rossi commented in liberal Folha de S. Paulo (9/18): "The fury with which both Americans and Europeans have reacted to what happened at the WTO ministerial in Cancun is much more intense than one would have supposed....  There is fear, even within the WTO, that the EU and the U.S. may [now] disregard the organization....  Several analysts had supposed that without an advance in the Cancun negotiations, another boom in bilateral and/or regional trade accords could occur.  This is not a good prospect for the developing world....  If such a reasonable suspicion already existed before Cancun, the scenario after the fiasco is even worse: the rich world's finger is clearly pointing to Brazil as the major party responsible for changing the game."


"Cancun In Miami?"


Clovis Rossi commented in liberal Folha de S. Paulo (9/17):  "The next FTAA ministerial meeting, scheduled for November in Miami, should be quite a spectacle, considering the fury with which both Americans and Europeans responded to the behavior of Brazil and the G-21, the group of developing nations led by Brazil, in Cancun.... The rich world, especially the U.S., does not like confrontations--even though the distance between the economic importance of the two nations is immense. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that the U.S. wants to take advantage in Miami of the opportunity to restore Brazil to its due place. Twelve nations of the group led by Brazil in Cancun will attend the FTAA meeting. The group was not created for the FTAA, but to deal with a very modest U.S.-EU proposal in terms of agricultural trade liberalization....  But it would be almost natural to have the alliance that rocked Cancun reappear in Miami."


"What's Next After Cancun"


Independent Jornal da Tarde editorialized (9/17):  "The failure of the WTO ministerial in Cancun has meant losses for both rich and developing nations....  The failure at Cancun has already encouraged some nations, beginning with the U.S. and the EU, to speed up bilateral trade negotiations....  If no accord is reached in Geneva, the quest for bilateral accords will grow. On the face of it, this type of accord gives developing nations great opportunities to gain access to the world's most important markets....  However, bilateral accords potentially undermine the foundations of the multilateral trade system on which the WTO is based....  Moreover, the strongest nations impose on the weakest ones rules that interest only their domestic lobbies.  Bilateral accords weaken the developing nations' power in international negotiations, because they discourage those nations from banding together in support of common causes.  In 2004, there will be presidential elections in the U.S. President George W. Bush has already demonstrated that to get votes he is capable of sending troops everywhere in the world on behalf of his nation's interest. One can only imagine what he could do in the trade area in an electoral year."


"Brazil Must Prioritize Strengthening The WTO"


Business-oriented Valor Economico noted (9/17):  "Under the unilateralist and despotic Bush administration, the U.S. is threatening to prioritize bilateral accords and conduct its trade policy on the basis of political favoritism....  Although the U.S.'s responsibility for the fiasco in Cancun is smaller than that of the EU, Washington helped to jeopardize the meeting by abandoning its previous position and aligning with the Europeans in defense of agricultural subsidies. Everyone knows that this stance will not change in 2004, an electoral year, because George W. Bush has his main electoral pillars in the agricultural states....  Instead of puerile victory celebrations for the failure in Cancun, the GOB should use the political power that it gained by forming the G-21 in defense of the WTO. To look to bilateral accords is a mistake."  


"Rich And Unreasonable"


In right-of-center O Globo, Miriam Leitão opined (9/16):  "The WTO meeting will delay the Doha Round of free trade by at least two years and weakens the multilateral organism even further.  Brazil's performance, however, reduces the failure because it shows that medium powers can unite to counterpoise rich countries' power.  Africa only wanted to sell more cotton and the rich said no....  The trade world is filled with absurd barriers....   There is an infinity of similar insanity, poor excuses to prevent free trade.  But, there is no other form to overcome it than constant negotiation."


MEXICO:  "Beyond Cancun" 


Gustavo Esteva judged in independent Reforma (9/24): "The WTO meeting in Cancun marked the drowning of the free trade argument.  Even though those who advocate free trade will continue to defend it, their line of reasoning is dead and their hypocrisy was made evident....  At the WTO meeting, weak nations dared to face the powerful nations, although they did not resort to protectionist arguments.  They merely conditioned trade concessions to dismantling the protectionist mechanisms of powerful countries.  The latter refused.  Thus, they are responsible for the failure of the Cancun meeting.  Capital is only interested in using either protectionism or free trade, depending on what best suits its interests....  The failure of the Cancun meeting, however, is positive in the sense that it has further awakened civil society and contributed to their awareness of the economic problems the world faces. This is no minor achievement for a meeting whose main protagonists were defeated by their arrogance and irrationality."


"The U.S. And Trade"


Gabriela de la Paz asserted in independent El Norte (9/17): "The failure of the recent WTO Ministerial should be attributed to several factors.  In the first place, developed countries refuse to compete under equal conditions as less developed countries.  Second, the predominant role of the U.S. in this organization, as well as the way it traditionally reacts to agriculture topics, is projected....  That the United States has been the main generator of free trade is undoubtable, as have those countries that have joined the game at a higher standard of living compared to those that have stayed on the margin.  Nevertheless, it is a fact that the topics being discussed in the agenda are imposed by developed countries and that there is a funnel law that needs to be broken so that there can be true free trade.”


CHILE:   "Cancun And The Cost Of Failure"


Leading-circulation, popular La Tercera editorialized (9/17):  "The recently concluded WTO convention in Cancun failed notoriously....  But this obstinacy was neither unilateral nor attributable to just one sector.  In fact, to launch the talks, the U.S. and the EU...submitted a draft proposal to gradually eliminate internal distortions to trade....  The flexibility shown by these 'ultra protectionist' states...would have been a small step forward....  But emerging powers and third world nations were not pragmatic in assessing the situation and placed demands that were too high, and by doing this only hurt themselves because the obstacles to agricultural exports were not eliminated....  Countries like Brazil, Argentina, and India, which led this unexpected reaction, should first review their own protectionist measures....because in the end...'when there is no progress, no one wins.'"


BOLIVIA:  "The Uncertain Future Of Global Trade"


Centrist La Razon editorialized (9/26): “The statements by the (Bolivian) Vice president before the General Assembly of the United Nations, made reference, one more time, to insurmountable differences in global trade: ‘The poor countries are demanding that their products reach the markets of the rich countries in favorable conditions’, he said.... The confrontation between rich and poor countries at the WTO ministerial, was a disaster and ran doubts about the future of the WTO....  The bad thing about this situation is that it creates doubts over the sincerity of the rich countries when they talk about free trade.  (Those doubts) could weaken the position of those who work for the acceptance of the FTAA project....  The unfairness in world trade is one of the causes of the insulting poverty of the Third World.  It is no good that rich countries promise economic aid to the poor, if they are not going to allow principles of equity and justice to be introduced in world trade.”


COLOMBIA: "Cancun And The Costs Of Heroism"


Rudolf Hommes warned in leading national El Tiempo (9/19):  "It looks like the debacle in Cancun will help....  I hope that we won’t have to conclude in the future an excess of zeal in protecting the interest of the agricultural sector kept us from signing a Free Trade Agreement with the U.S.”   


"Lost Opportunity"


Gustavo Tobon Londoño commented in Cali-based El Pais (9/19):  "It seemed that the developing countries woke up in Cancun.  The G-21...was heard and it is now clear that decisions cannot continue being taken in secret by the strongest."


ECUADOR:  "World Trade Summit"


Riobamba’s moderate-centrist Los Andes noted (9/22):  "This [failure] occurred above all because it was the first time that the agricultural issue was addressed.  This is a delicate issue that provokes serious discussion internationally due to the subsidies granted to farmers by developed countries, such as the U.S. and those from the European Union.  Those subsidies reach whopping and impressive figures, contrary to what happens in developing countries where we still believe that a free market is the response to all our woes--a free market without any interference from the state, including technical assistance and investment.  Now we see clearly that in countries such as ours, agriculture has been abandoned without technical support, without subsidies, and even without credits, contrary to what happens in industrialized nations....  Developed nations preach about free trade but practice subsidizing policies that will never allow poor countries to be competitive in international markets.”


"Since the Cancun Failure"


Quito’s left-leaning, sensationalist La Hora declared (9/21):  "After the failure of the WTO meeting in Cancun, expectations for world trade and the fight against poverty are very discouraging.  In the case of neighboring countries, Colombia concentrates its efforts in negotiating a free trade agreement with the U.S., and Peru already signed an accord for integrating within Mercosur.  The few perspectives of solving the failures [of commercial integration] in the Andean region demand that Ecuador defines its position vis-a-vis Andean trade--participation within the FTAA or an accord similar to the one signed by Colombia and the U.S., in order to avoid being isolated.”


GUATEMALA:  "Free Trade, Poverty and Wealth"


Conservative, business-oriented Siglo Veintiuno argued (9/22):  "International free trade does not depend on an institutions like the WTO.  It depends on countries allowing free imports and exports of goods....  Free world trade is the best way for poor countries to be less poor and have the real hope of becoming rich, and the only option for wealthy countries to be wealthier.  And there will be free trade if all customs in the world are eliminated....  The WTO would only have one function:  be the arbitrator of free world commerce."


JAMAICA: "The Challenge Of Solidarity"


The centrist, business-oriented Jamaica Observer editorialized (9/19): "Such contempt for poor countries, we believe, is a part of the problem at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).  And it played itself out in Cancun last week when delegates from the rich nations engaged in closed discussions throughout the conference...added to growing dissatisfaction about agriculture subsidies which poor countries say are hurting their farmers, U.S. and European Union bullying aimed at further dismantling of trade barriers in the developing world, and the bitter economic experience of many developing nations that had opened their markets to competition, was a potent combination that had to explode....  We in this region need to utilise this breathing space to transform our economies and increase our ability to compete.  For, make no mistake, the wealthy nations will not abandon their agenda.  Therefore, we would be wise to prepare ourselves for transformation, as the dismantling of all trade preferences is inevitable."

"A Severe Blow To The WTO"

John Rapley commented in the moderate, influential Daily Gleaner (9/18):  "The tide against globalisation has turned in several countries, including the U.S.  With presidential elections due next year, it is unlikely the Bush administration will expend any more capital on securing a trade deal....  There may be no time like the present to advance the cause of regional integration in order to augment market size and make the region a more attractive trading partner....  In theory, say some critics of the world trading system, no trade is better than bad trade.  But the risk is that this may turn out to be another case where the theory is wrong."

PANAMA: "The New Walls"


Conservative El Panama America editorialized (9/19):  "The nations that promoted market liberalization are now responsible for its control, maintaining protectionist measures that obstruct the application of an economic and political system based on principles of equality and liberty. This was manifested during the last World Trade Organization summit in Cancun. As economic tariff and non-tariff barriers reappear, restrictive migration policies strengthened, returning to distancing countries. The WTO summit made it clear that this organization is far from reaching its objectives and the developed countries are responsible for this retreat, in their attempt to hold on to their privileges, opposing the changes they promote.”


"The Great Lie"


Juan David Morgan held in independent La Prensa (9/17):  "Before the Cancun summit, the debate on subsidies was mainly between the U.S. and Europe, and it focused on the way in which the agricultural products of those richer regions would enter their own markets....  After Cancun, the agricultural problem will take a new dimension....  Te latest statistics...clearly indicate that globalization does not have positive results in the economies of developing countries....  If the unfair agricultural subsidies of the rich countries end, then market globalization can become a future tool for the development of humanity.  But if the industrialized countries ignore the needs of the poor, and keep those unfair privileges and subsidies, then globalization will continue being what it has been up to now:  A Great Lie”


PARAGUAY: "Free Trade Was Not On Anyone's Agenda"


Highest circulation ABC Color concluded (9/21): "The clash in Cancun was not between rich and poor countries, nor was it between free trade and protectionism, but rather between protectionist policies of rich countries and protectionist policies of poor countries.  Free trade was not on anyone's agenda.... The barriers and tariffs between poor countries are higher and more damaging than the subsidies of the rich countries.  The liberalizing of trade between the poor countries will make the victims of European and American protectionism more and more their own consumers.  Meanwhile, countries like Paraguay, who have little to protect, can forget the blocs and negotiate bilateral, free-trade agreements."




Third-largest left-of-center Ultima Hora editorialized (9/17):  "The failure of the last meeting of the WTO in Cancun looked like a photocopy of other times....  On this occasion it was shaped by the G-21 which presented a common posture to demand results in [the disparity between the amount of subsidies paid by the developed world to its agriculture sector and the amount of aid dedicated to the developing world] and to not open discussions in other topics (investment)....  In the present...the strip of the world that appears to be most disproportionately harmed by globalization is looking for its voice....  We are all human beings. But with different and distant opportunities.  The world will continue to be vast and indifferent."


URUGUAY: "Global Selfishness"


Conservative, business-oriented El Observador noted (9/21): "Both the poor and the rich would have benefited from a good liberalization agreement.  But the rich countries did not have the courage to reduce the outrageous subsidies granted to their farmers...nor did the poor countries dare to try to reduce their high tariffs designed to protect their sometimes inefficient industries.  [In the latter case] perhaps this was done in order not to create enemies out of powerful NGOs that defend their own interests more than they defend poor countries."


"The Moment Is Now"


Conservative, business-oriented El Observador declared (9/17):  "If Uruguay gained something in Cancun it was the confirmation that it cannot expect external generosity and must depend on its own ability and imagination to multiply the exports needed to reactivate [the economy]....  The European Union, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan blocked everything in order to focus on their own commercial needs and relegate to empty discussions the urgent needs of the agro exporting nations that includes the poorest countries on earth.  The United States disagreed with the Europeans and Asians and showed itself more inclined to lower the subsidies and protectionism that block free agricultural trade."  


Commentary from ...
Middle East
East Asia
South Asia
Western Hemisphere

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Back To Top

blue rule
IIP Home  |  Issue Focus Home