It’s five days to the deadline, and WTO negotiations in Doha are nowhere close to reaching a consensus. The goal is for four economies to come up with mutually acceptable numbers as a basis for an agreement to be concluded in June 2007. As the April 30 deadline looms, the U.S. and the E.U. are now blaming the other for the standstill. (New York Times, 25 April 2006)

The U.S. must cut farm subsidies and the E.U., Brazil, and India will have to cut tariffs on agriculture and industrial goods, said Pascal Lamy, WTO director-general. (Alan Beattie, Financial Times, 17 April 2006). Such measures will be a tough sell for all parties domestically, assuming that this deal must appear a success in “defend[ing] multilateralism in the global economy.” (Financial Times, 17 April 2006)

In an editorial, Trade Policy Officer Tim Rice concludes that no trade policy may be the best option, calling the deal a “mockery of the commitment to place the interests of poorer nations at the heart of the talks” (Tim Rice, Financial Times, 24 April 2006).

There doesn’t seem to any point worrying about missed deadlines if stakeholders like the U.S. and the E.U. get around their commitments through hidden export subsidies and misclassification of trade-distorting subsidies, as they have with respect to the agreement in the Uruguay round. A WTO panel concluded that:

Despite their WTO commitments to reduce trade-distorting subsidies, the European Union and the United States have used loopholes and creative accounting to continue dumping products on world markets. (Oxfam, 9 April 2006)

If the WTO agreement is simply lip service to fair trade, then having no deal would serve the interests of developing nations like Brazil and India. At least they would not have to be held accountable to rules which developed countries bend at will.