There have been several vibrant exchanges in the local press following the “collapse of the WTO talks at Cancun”. This is heartening, as it shows that after three years of this globalisation series local interest in these matters is growing. In my first piece on this topic two weeks ago, I tried to make the case that since “9/11”, it has become impossible to make sense of major global events without reference to this terror attack and its aftermath. In particular, it has become clear that the security pre-occupations of the United States have become the most pressing dynamic governing globalisation. Purely development concerns of the developing countries are now a matter of second order priority. From this perspective I find it naïve, if not foolish, to debate the “collapse of Cancun” without this being the major frame of reference.

To aid in the appreciation of this observation I sought to convince readers last week, to distinguish between the deep-seated causal factors leading to the “collapse at Cancun” and the more proximate or immediate circumstances, which may have led to the timing and manner of the collapse. From this perspective 9/11 and its aftermath may be considered as one of the most important deep-seated causal factors behind the collapse at Cancun. I also indicated last week that I had scanned some of the serious international media and have found several of the proximate considerations they have offered as explanations for that collapse. This week I refer to some of these.

Abominable “Dedicated” - No Men

Surprisingly, several of the serious international media have spent much time on what we might term as conspiratorial explanations of the collapse of the Cancun talks. Martin Wolf, writing in the Financial Times (September 24), has taken aim at what he terms the abominable no-men menacing world trade. He claims that the collapse at Cancun was “A triumph for the abominable no-men of world trade”. At the head of this group he placed France and India. France, he claims, is “dedicated” to the role of preventing the European Union from reforming its agriculture system. This system and its enormous subsidies, he argues, has fuelled the deep sense of injustice and outrage, which have motivated the anti-WTO developing countries, some academics, and numerous civic and activist groups around the world. India he argues, on the other hand, is “dedicated” to creating a coalition of developing countries against the WTO programme of trade liberalisation. As he starkly puts it: “Their tacit alliance won. But the world lost”.

It should not escape the discerning reader that these views are sourced to what is probably the most respected financial daily in the world. Certainly, it is a paper with a remarkable record for investigative financial-economic stories, as well as the sustained high level of its economic analysis. Those among us who would use intemperate language against local and regional views we disagree with, should therefore take caution. The world is never as simple as it seems.

The US Conspiracy

Another similar conspiratorial thesis has been linked to the USA. This version sometimes includes the claim that the US exercised pressure on the Mexican Chairman, to encourage him to prematurely rule a deadlock and bring the talks to a close. The Economist (September 20) reported that European delegates in particular “blamed Mr. Debrez for cutting off discussion too hastily”. It even reported that participants had claimed, “Mexico ended the debate at the behest of the Americans who wanted the meeting to fail all along”. The reason for this is presumably that since 9/11 the USA is no longer interested in a multilateral process of global liberalisation. Although the Economist discounted this it is a widely held view that for a number of reasons, including, the increasing complexity of the process, the dilution of its leverage over the outcomes of these negotiations, and its own security pre-occupations the US has hinted at this intention. Writing in the Financial Times (September 22) the US Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick went some ways towards making the case for the US pursuit of bilateral deals with individual countries and groups of countries, as in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), as a realistic alternative to the WTO route in order to protect and advance its trade interests.

Our World is Not for Sale

The network of global activists under the banner: “Our World is Not for Sale” has been blamed for creating an atmosphere that led to the “derailment” of the talks. Indeed the network had called for this “derailment” some time before the Cancun meeting, but very few persons believed that such an outcome was possible. However, having made the call for such a “derailment”, the fact that it has happened, not unsurprisingly, has led to the claim that the NGO network was engaged in a “conspiracy” to bring this about. In this process they were aided, wittingly and unwittingly, by “gullible and unsophisticated” developing country trade negotiations.

In the Economist (September 20), “the irresponsible and inflammatory behaviour of the NGO” network was singled out as one of the real causes of the collapse, along with the “intransigence and brinkmanship” by both rich and poor countries, and the “flawed decision-making system of the WTO”.

Cotton Again

An interesting closing footnote is the reporting of the cotton issue. Here the Economist stressed the hypocrisy in US agricultural production and trade arrangements. Its promises to reduce subsidies, it pointed out, were belied by its actions. In this regard it drew attention to the “outrageous increase in American farming subsidies”. It also cited the US government cave-in at Cancun to its domestic cotton growers lobby. It concluded that this action had a greater effect on poor countries than US lofty pronouncements “about freer farm trade - and rightly so”.

In my opinion, all the factors discussed above, have contributed in some way to the “collapse at Cancun”. However, neither separately nor collectively do they represent the fundamental causal factors for that collapse.

Next week we continue to look at more of these explanations in the serious global media.