Mark Ritchie, President
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
November 2001

Take the Ministers of Trade from 142 countries, a few hundred journalists, NGOs and business lobbyists and tens of thousands of police and military for security, and you have the makings of one of the most surreal events in recent international diplomacy history - the Fourth Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization in Doha, Qatar. Against the backdrop of September 11 and the disastrous Seattle Ministerial two years ago, the WTO set forth to agree on a Ministerial Declaration that would chart the work agenda for WTO negotiators for the next few years.

Leading up to the Doha meeting, serious conflicts existed between North and South governments and between the United States and Europe. As in Seattle, US and European negotiators used nearly every known form of arm-twisting, bullying and bribery to stifle Third World proposals and give the appearance of consensus. In Seattle, the process did not lead to agreement but to collapse. In Doha, with the help of a one-day meeting extension, the right level of deal making and threatening led to agreement on a final Declaration.

The entire 10-page Declaration is riddled with language that allowed many negotiators to go home and claim victory or at least the avoidance of defeat. Although the Ministerial and the WTO are presented as part of the global agenda, much of what was at play was parochial politics played out on the global stage. Upcoming elections in Brazil, France and the United States were factors in a number of key public battles and behind-the-scenes compromises.

A good example of artful word-smithing in the service of domestic politics was found in area of agriculture. Southern countries demanded radical reforms, including a call for the end of export subsidies and other methods of export dumping by the US and EU. Unfortunately, Australian, European and US agribusiness corporations were able to keep this demand off the agenda by conceding to general language on reducing export subsidies. While agribusiness could claim this as a victory, export dumping will most likely resurface in future meetings.

The US and Europe put a number of new items, including investment, government purchasing and competition policy, on the WTO agenda. However, a coalition of developing countries led by India made sure no negotiations on these topics could take place without the agreement of every single member country in the WTO. India believes this measure will prevent the WTO from ever seriously negotiating these issues. But will Southern countries withstand increasing pressure from the US and EU to negotiate these topics?

A major exception to the reign of ambiguity in Doha was the combined force of NGOs and a number of Third World governments, which dealt a major blow against pharmaceutical companies on the issue of drug patenting. Their effort was helped by a backlash against the pharmaceutical industry for limiting access to affordable drugs to treat AIDS victims in Brazil, South Africa and other developing countries. A special document adopted at the meeting specifically affirmed the right of WTO member nations to put public health before the patenting rights of pharmaceutical companies. More than a decade of organizing by NGOs, combined with strong efforts by several developing country governments, led to the adoption of the special declaration over objections by the US, Switzerland, Germany and the United Kingdom.

The declaration on public health and drug patents represented the first clear victory in the WTO by the coalition of developing countries' governments and civil society groups that has emerged over the last ten years. This cooperation came on the heels of successful NGO-government collaborations on land mines, global warming and protection of biological diversity and was one of the most important forces at the Ministerial. This new international political force will likely play a growing role in influencing the global agenda in the next decade.

An important emerging issue that this public interest coalition will address is the relationship between the WTO and a new generation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Biosafety Agreement. The WTO has consistently taken the view that trade rules should trump environmental rules and is attempting to enforce this position through a preemptive strike against the authority of MEAs. A similar concern is that this Declaration is attempting to expand WTO rule-making authority into new areas, including drinking water and other public goods and services. NGOs see these as "high alert" concerns that require close monitoring and early intervention.

At the end of the day, no clear winners or losers, except the drug companies, emerged from Doha. Everyone could claim to have survived to fight another day. What is important is that the lines of the fight were more clearly drawn with NGOs and Third World governments lining up against rich countries' governments and multinational corporations. The 2003 Ministerial set for Mexico will be the next chance for this evolving coalition to move beyond the victory on drugs to a wide range of new issues. The Mexico Ministerial could be the beginning of a New World Order very different from that envisioned by recently retired presidents.