By SOPHIA MURPHY
Sir, Your insistence on the need for a trade round, as indeed is the obsession of so many of our trade officials, is puzzling ("The case for a trade round", August 2). What in the word "round" makes it so essential to the health of the multilateral trade system?
The Uruguay round of trade talks did two things to eliminate the dependence of the trade system on rounds. First, it created the World Trade Organisation - a permanent forum for ongoing negotiations, to replace the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which did not formally exist as an institution and could not address problems as they arose in the system. Second, some of the most contentious agreements contained clauses to trigger new talks automatically.
Whether or not a broad round is launched in Doha this November, governments are already obliged to review the existing agreements on agriculture, services and intellectual property rights. As you point out in your editorial, there is also an urgent need to address the concerns of developing countries, which are undeniably disadvantaged by too many of the existing rules. Finally, how can the trade system continue if it ignores the very real, and vocal, concerns of constituencies as diverse as workers, consumers and environmentalists? The European Union position may lack coherence but these concerns cannot be ignored if support for multilateral trade rules is to be assured.
In Doha, with or without a "round", negotiators will discuss agriculture, services and intellectual property rights. If they care about the trade system, they will also focus on how to create more equitable trade rules for poor countries and how to harmonise trade rules with social and environmental policy. A round by any other name? It is certainly plenty for an institution as fragile as the WTO to be getting on with.
Sophia Murphy, Director, Trade and Agriculture Programme, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2105 First Avenue S, Minneapolis, MN 55404, US:
