Follow Philippe Legrain on Twitter Follow Philippe Legrain on YouTube Follow Philippe Legrain on Facebook Email me
By Philippe Legrain 1 COMMENT

My former boss and good friend Mike Moore has written an excellent piece about prospects for the Doha Round, which is unfortunately only available to FT.com subscribers until Mike publishes it on his own website.

Noting that ‘If you only read the headlines you would be forgiven for thinking the Doha development trade round had already failed’, the man who helped launch the round as WTO director-general argues that ‘We can do this’.

He is right. 

Moore argues that although it is a good thing that developing countries are flexing their muscles, especially on agriculture,

this cannot be just an
agricultural round if it is to succeed. It will not be without costs or
change for developing countries. There are good reasons why they, too,
should open their markets. Every bit of economic and historic evidence
shows this is good for all sides.

He warns against accepting a modest deal:

When some ministers talk of a minimum deal and lowering of ambitions… What they are really saying is that we need to have
minimal change to our agriculture… Some politicians want to cut a tiny deal, call it
victory and go home. I hope that is not the case. That is like
declaring victory in Iraq and running away, hoping the good headline
drowns out the reality of failure

And he concludes:

The
multilateral system has underpinned the most successful 50 years of
human existence. Failure is not an option for those who still
believe in a growing, peaceful world governed by predictable,
enforceable, transparent rules. Alas, the populist protesters may claim
a non-result is a victory. But does that not just leave the poor
exactly where they have always been?

Here here.

Posted 27 Jun 2006 in Blog, Trade
  1. Matt says:

    I know Mike’s your mate Philippe, but “an excellent piece”, come off it.
    My theory is that Mike can’t quite cut the intelligent insight line on the globalisation dinner circuit so he’s gone for the tough talking provincial machismo. Certainly this article shows the usual combination of bumption and moronic one liners; “Every bit of economic and historic evidence shows this is good for all sides”, “Open trade is development”, hey? I think he does the cause a disservice now you’re not there to do the editing. Give me Martin Wolf any day.

Leave a reply




*

rch.