OSLO—There is a clear lesson to be drawn from the unsuccessful World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations held in Geneva from July 21 to 29: The world is witnessing a shift of power in the arena of the world economy and world trade. New states with growing economies and political ambitions are asserting themselves.

For nine days, I was part of a series of contests of strength in today’s world of power politics. But rather than on a battlefield, they were taking place around the negotiating table, where rights and obligations in world trade are meted out. 

For seven years, the countries of the world have been negotiating an agreement intended to promote trade, cut tariffs and remove other barriers to trade, with a special emphasis on opening up opportunities for developing countries, which were, for the first time, the focus of a round of trade negotiations. The rich countries were to take on greater obligations, and the poorest countries were to be shielded. The developing countries were to be helped to build their own capacity for trade—aid for trade. Tariffs for fish and industrial products were to be cut.

And, for the first time, agriculture was put firmly on the agenda: the rich countries were to cut domestic production subsidies, export subsidies and tariffs. Countries with rapidly growing economies were to be given better market access.

The WTO was to find a package solution to all these issues. The organization has 153 members and makes decisions on the basis of consensus. This is a hugely complex process in which all countries must make a contribution and all gain something. There have been many ups and downs over the years.

In Geneva, we met for one last effort. India and China were demanding a safeguard mechanism that would be triggered by a surge in agricultural imports. The United States felt the proposed conditions that would trigger the mechanism were too lenient, and so would limit trade. The United States and other countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Brazil, want increased market access for exports from their efficient agricultural sectors. Many developing countries are justifiably concerned about the consequences. We tried to find a compromise, but the United States and India refused to give way. WTO director general Pascal Lamy had to recognize that we had come to a dead end, at least for now. 

Even more important, we could have paved the way for the next major round of negotiations, on climate change, in Copenhagen next year. In negotiations focusing on development and poverty, the rich countries must be prepared to shoulder greater burdens while the developing countries must accept their share of responsibility.

Perhaps I was present at the collapse of a world order. But, at the same time, I witnessed the birth of a new world order where all countries are present and demand their rights, and that requires an almost unlimited willingness to negotiate, make compromises and find sustainable solutions.

Only a few years ago, it was the United States and the European Union that decided the outcome of such conflicts. If they agreed on a solution, it was generally accepted. Those days are over. Now, nobody can ignore countries like India and Brazil. Together, they speak on behalf of about 100 developing countries.

And, for the first time, there is a newcomer in the circle of major countries that call the shots—China. China speaks as a developing country and, together with India, it has been demanding rights for the developing countries.

Even though these two countries have lifted millions of people out of poverty, there are, for example, many more people living in poverty in India than in the whole of Africa. But there is much more to China. In private talks with colleagues from Asia, I have heard that it is not exports from the United States and the EU they fear most, but the Chinese export juggernaut.

At the other end of the scale, countries in West Africa are counting on the WTO to pressure the United States into reducing the high level of subsidies for exports of cotton, which are wiping out the cotton industry in poor African countries.

We recognize that the situation is serious, but responsible leaders must also look to the future. We must not lose everything we have achieved through negotiations over the last seven years. None of the solutions we have agreed on in this period will take effect until we reach agreement on the entire package. So we must make every effort to resume the negotiations once the dust has settled from this collapse. And we must retain the WTO as a key organization in the world economy.

Thus, we must use our failure in Geneva as a spur for the development of a world order in keeping with a new age; one that involves more states, a shift in the power balance and essential new tasks relating to climate change, the environment, labor rights and the fight against poverty. 

Jonas Gahr Store is foreign minister of Norway.

Editorial: Roads to prosperity

The Chinese have a saying: If you want to get rich, build a road. Following Deng Xiaoping’s launch of the Four Modernizations Program in 1978, the People’s Republic did just that.

Nonnie L. Pelayo: CA mess: Whose fault?

THE unsavory reputation of the Court of Appeals owing to the misbehaving members in its ranks is traceable to the nonobservance by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) of its own rules and the culture of accommodation among its members when these errant justices were nominated.

Dispatches from the Enchanted Kingdom: Just a piece of paper?

‘It’s just a piece of paper. There’s nothing to worry about,” replied Fr. Joaquin Bernas when asked by the Philippine Daily Inquirer about the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Arroyo administration and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).  

The Way Forward: A peace that could lead to war

IN its alarming provisions for an enlarged Moro homeland and the way it was negotiated in the dark, the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain between the GRP (Government Republic of the Philippines and the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) deserves to die in the water.

Market Files: Bangko Sentral disclosure

The disclosure by the Bangko Sentral Pilipinas (BSP) of the banking industry’s P89-billion exposure to the collapsing collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) in the subprime market in the United States is commendable.

Philip M. Lustre Jr.: Responsible mining is a myth

As mining activities take an upswing, bigger environmental woes loom, offsetting gains that have been made by the mining sector. The heavy social cost of a mining boom is to be expected. Mining growth and environmental degradation, or “ecological terrorism,” as an observer aptly puts it, are two sides of the same coin; one side goes with the other side.

Inter Press Service: WTO talks collapse and the birth of a new world order

OSLO—There is a clear lesson to be drawn from the unsuccessful World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations held in Geneva from July 21 to 29: The world is witnessing a shift of power in the arena of the world economy and world trade. New states with growing economies and political ambitions are asserting themselves.