La Chambre de Commerce Américaine auprès de l'UE n'enterre pas Doha[en] 

Following the suspension of WTO negotiations in July, the question is whether the talks will be revived, and when? Many onlookers believe that negotiations on a deal may regain momentum after the mid-term congressional elections in the US. Could you explain why these elections play a role in determining the timeline of negotiations and whether they could have an impact on the US’ stance in the talks? 

For the DDA negotiations to stand a chance of successs, observers agree that it would be wise to restart the negotiations in the period after the US mid-term elections, thus providing the US administration with as much political room as possible to be flexible in its negotiating position. When [WTO chief] Pascal Lamy suspended the talks in July, he suggested that negotiators step back for a period of reflection. It was not clear how long this would need to be, but we certainly hope that all negotiators have now reviewed their approaches to the negotiations and will soon be getting back to the table with the necessary ambition, flexibility and political will to successfully conclude the Doha Development Round. 

The other important date in the US is July 2007, when President Bush’s “fast track” authority expires. Do you believe it will be possible to reach a deal by this date and if not, do you think that Congress is likely to extend the Trade Promotion Authority’s negotiating mandate? 

Yes, I do believe that a deal on the core elements of the Round is possible by Spring 2007. In fact it is critical to the world economy and to the competitiveness of all countries, rich and poor alike, that this Round is politically concluded by that time. AmCham EU is campaigning energetically to ensure that the key players get back to the table with a mindset of urgency and compromise. 

Reaching a political agreement by Spring 2007 would still necessitate at least a short extension to the TPA. I also believe that this is possible. It will not be easy, but AmCham EU’s perspective is clear: The Doha Round needs and deserves this extra time, and it is in the economic interest of the US to grant it that time. 

Supposing no deal is reached before the expiry of the fast track and that the latter is not renewed: What prospects do you see for the future of global trade talks? Would the Doha Round be revived at a later date (and if so when?) or would a new framework be needed? 

If the November 2006-Spring 2007 window is missed, it is very unlikely that negotiations will be re-opened for a number of years. Such a long postponement will make the hard-fought agreements already in place increasingly irrelevant. Furthermore, it is quite possible that the political fall-out accompanying such a long postponement may make Member States reticent to start another round of protracted international trade negotiations – bestowing on the Uruguay Round the unenviable title of the last ever set of international trade negotiations. 

The consequences of this would be diverse and grave. Notwithstanding the loss of huge potential welfare gains , a failed Round could lead to challenges to the World Trade Organization and a strong multilateral rules-based trade system; increased regionalism and protectionism; shocks in financial markets and the loss of an opportunity to catalyze domestic economic reform. 

Is the US willing to compromise in order to save the Round and what concessions will it need from the EU and other partners? Would the US would be willing to sacrifice the Round in order to content its farm lobby if the EU refuses to make more concessions? 

We are deeply concerned that WTO members might allow the negotiations to fail because of disputes over agricultural policy. Agriculture accounts for only 4% of the world’s GDP and only 7.1% of global trade according to the WTO. In the EU and the US the figures are even lower. For the EU agriculture represents no more than 2.2% of GDP and in the US only 1% -making any economical arguments for not being able to get over the impasse on agriculture nonsensical. 

We have neither time nor interest in “blame games”. We want to see results. The EU and US negotiators must work together to achieve results in opening markets and improving the regulatory environment for manufactured goods and services. This requires creativity and flexibility on agricultural policy change. Maintaining market distorting agricultural policies and fighting over beef quotas neither secures our economic future nor helps to achieve global development goals. 

Having said this it is essential that all key negotiating partners must come back to the table with more flexible offers. 

In our view the key to a successful Round are the five following points: 

1. The EU and the US must make political commitments to reform further their agricultural policies so as to enable markets to operate efficiently, even if these commitments will not come to fruition until later. 
2. Substantial offers must come from emerging economies such as Brazil, China and India with regard to non-agricultural products and services.
3. “Sensitive” product classifications must be kept to a strictly limited number of products, if allowed at all. 
4. Developed and developing countries must commit to a substantive increase in services liberalisation. 
5. There must be no gap between rhetoric and reality insofar as granting real market access for all Least Developed Countries’ products. 

However difficult it may be, the WTO and the multilateral trading system generally must not be allowed to fail. We live in a global economy. A system of bi- and plurilateral agreements is no substitute for a sound, coherent international framework. Walking away from this negotiation, which is the chance of a generation to increase market access and set global trading rules, is not the legacy for which these negotiators would want to be remembered. It’s not too late. It only takes a redoubling of efforts and political will.