KEY POINTS:
Listening to the optimistic rhetoric of world leaders from George W. Bush to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, it would be easy to assume that after more than five years of fractious talks a global trade deal, giving poor countries a fairer chance to compete
in world markets, is within reach.
But away from the razzle-dazzle of Davos, where World Trade Organisation director-general Pascal Lamy announced the official relaunch of the much delayed Doha round of talks, negotiations are slow and time is tight.
Britain, the US, and other countries keen on a resolution are engaged in a round of behind-the-scenes diplomacy, putting pressure on key players, in particular Brazil and India, to compromise.
On his recent visit to India, the British Chancellor, Gordon Brown, took the opportunity to impress on his hosts the importance of reaching a deal. India has much to gain: its fast-growing services sector would welcome better access to rich markets; but it is also keen to protect its poor farmers from an influx of subsidised food.
The Brazilian President, known as "Lula", meanwhile, would like to secure better access to overseas markets for Brazil's powerful agribusinesses, but the trade unions fear mass layoffs if the country's manufacturing industry is opened up to foreign competition in return. And the US and EU, which spend more protecting their farmers than they do on overseas aid, are under pressure to yield a little more ground.
Even if the US, EU, Brazil and India can agree on a "landing zone" for the talks, as Lamy calls it, a long list of political and practical imponderables remains.
Anti-poverty campaigners, who had high hopes that the Doha round would transform the fortunes of developing countries, worry that if the bigger of these, such as Brazil and India, are picked off, smaller poor states with less to gain and more to lose will be forced to sign up to an unfair deal - or risk being blamed for Doha's failure, and perhaps even the collapse of the WTO.
"I think this is a sort of blackmail," says Aftab Alam Khan, who works with the charity Action Aid in Pakistan. "A bad deal could be catastrophic for the multilateral trading system, because millions of poor people will have less and less trust in it."
Rashid Kaukab, who tracks the progress of Doha for think-tank South Centre, says it would be hard for poor countries not to offer concessions without the shelter of Brazil and India. "Imagine a big mountain, and a small hill behind it. So long as the big mountain stands, the small hill can remain green. If that is gone, the full pressure of a storm is on the small hill."
Nevertheless, the developing countries could decide to walk away if they feel the deal on the table would be damaging.
In Europe, meanwhile, the run-up to April's French presidential election is unlikely to be an auspicious moment for suggesting the EU make generous concessions on the Common Agricultural Policy: taking on the farm lobby is not a vote-winner.
Bush has asked the US Congress to approve an extension to his trade promotion authority, due to expire at the end of June. Without it, Congress could unpick any deal, line by line. But some Democrats have suggested they won't grant his request.
As the world's statesmen edge closer to sketching the outlines of a deal, the optimists of Davos will have to fight the voices of those who wonder if it's worth it.
- OBSERVER
